Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ZETLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Food Prices

Mr. Ashton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in the price of bacon in the last 12 months, and the reason for its increase.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): Since the percentage increase may be given only in terms of the various cuts and contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate those in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The reasons for the increases were the increased costs of pigmeat production caused by increased world prices for cereals and proteins and the competition bacon curers have met from other users of pigmeat in a strong world market for all meats.

Mr. Ashton: Has the Minister seen the report in the Sunday Telegraph, which stated that farmers are making approximately 50p profit on a pig weighing 1 cwt. and that supermarkets are making 13p profit on a pound of bacon? What action will she take to stop this practice, or must we all have rolls and coffee for breakfast, as in the Common Market?

Mrs. Fenner: A standing reference has now been made to the Price Commission to keep an eye on the whole range of fresh foods, and it is required to report to the Minister any details of the distribution margins on fresh foods which it wishes to draw to his attention.

Mr. Body: While my hon. Friend will be aware that the Commission, under Mr. George Thomson, has claimed that only 5 per cent. of the increase in the price of food can be attributed to our entry to the Common Market and to the imposition of levies, his figures can be only an average. Can my hon. Friend say what effect the levies have had upon the percentage increase in the price of bacon?

Mrs. Fenner: Bearing in mind that 80 per cent. of our bacon imports, which represent about half the bacon that we consume, comes from Denmark, and that the Danes are now receiving an EEC subsidy of £82 per ton, which is 20 per cent. more than the Danish national subsidies before 1st February 1973, my hon. Friend will see that the increases are due to the reasons I have given, which are world difficulties in regard to cereals and proteins, and are not attributable to the Common Market.

Following is the information:

The following table shows the percentage increases in the average retail prices of bacon as collected for the purposes of the Index of Retail Food Prices between 17th October 1972 and 16th October 1973.

Collar*
55·5


Gammon*
45·7


Middle Cut, smoked*
43·0


Back, smoked
40·6


Back, unsmoked
42·0


Streaky, smoked
53·4


* or Scottish equivalent.

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in food prices since 1970.

Mr. Carter: asked the Minister of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the cost of food has risen since 18th June 1970.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in food prices since June 1970.

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage food prices have risen since June 1970.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): Between 16th June 1970 and 16th October 1973, the latest date for which information is available, the food index rose by 44.8 per cent.

Mr. Cox: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those figures indicate the total collapse of any credibility for the Government's prices policy? Is he further aware that many families cannot afford to buy many items of food—and I do not mean luxury foods? As we are approaching Christmas, which is usually a time of heavy expense, will the right hon. Gentleman say what protection he can give housewives from the profiteering which evidence shows has already started?

Mr. Godber: If the hon. Member has evidence of profiteering I shall be happy to have it looked at immediately by the Price Commission. I agree that the level of price rises is most regrettable, but they have occurred for reasons the House knows perfectly well, namely the rise in world food prices. These rises have been even greater in other countries. As for the point about Christmas, I remind the hon. Member that the Government are providing a special bonus for pensioners.

Mr. Cox: You must be joking.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Member says we must be joking, but the Labour Government never provided such a bonus.

Mr. Carter: When will the right hon. Gentleman and the Government take food price rises seriously? In view of his remarks about the bonus for pensioners at Christmas, will he say that he wishes the £10 bonus to be increased to £20 in order to compensate for the grotesque price rises of the last 12 months?

Mr. Godber: I should certainly not wish to minimise for one moment the seriousness of food price increases, but when the Opposition make comments such as we have heard this afternoon it is time to remind the House that the purchasing power of each section of the community is higher today than when we took office in June 1970. [Interruption.] Those are the facts. I gave the figure

for the food price increase, which is 44·8 per cent. The earnings increase is 47 per cent. and the pensions increase is 55 per cent. What is much more significant—and is the only true comparison—is the retail price index as a whole. This has risen by 32·5 per cent., which must be compared with the rises in earnings and pensions. If what we have done is bad, what the Labour Government did was infinitely worse.

Mr. John Wells: Will my right hon. Friend confirm my impression that the rise in price of home-produced food for consumption here is very much less, and will he confirm—I think I am right—that it is only 17·7 per cent. in the last year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Only?"]—and in particular that for British horticultural produce the rise has been very small?

Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend is correct. The price rises he mentions are very much lower. I do not have before me the figure he quoted but it is of that order. However, the true comparison is that world food prices in the period since we came to office have risen by no less than 77 per cent., which is twice as much as food prices in this country.

Mr. Skinner: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the pensioners' purchasing power in 1970 or at any other date, is he not saying that, as is self-evident, pensioners' purchasing power has increased for several generations? However, does he not realise that one of the main reasons why food prices are rocketing concerns the returns we saw yesterday from Sainsbury's, for instance, of 18½ per cent.—a profit of nearly £7 million going into the well-lined pockets of the Sainsbury shareholders?
Is not one of the main reasons also reflected by the NFU survey, which shows that more than half the people in this country believe the Common Market swindle also to be responsible for the price situation?

Mr. Godber: First, on the specific point raised at the beginning of the hon. Member's question, it is clear that there has been a general rise in the standard of living of pensioners for many generations and I hope that it will continue. It is significant, however, that the rise is a great deal faster under a Conservative Government than under Labour. As for


the profits of particular firms, the Price Commission has the right to look into all these matters and limitations are normally imposed by the code, which restricts the level of profits.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when he announced from the Dispatch Box two weeks ago that price increases under the Labour Government were among the highest we had had, the Opposition immediately excused that by blaming it on the Korean war? Is not this proof that world forces influence prices? Is the refusal of the Opposition to recognise that fact due to their typical political hypocrisy?

Mr. Godber: I must ask the Leader of the Opposition to answer that, but we can all draw our own conclusions. The electorate have drawn their conclusions in recent by-elections.

Mr. William Price: Is not that the most disgraceful set of answers given in the House for many years? Is it not apparent that, on the basis of the October figures, with the increase running at nearly 40 per cent. a year, the Government have thrown in the towel? Does not the Minister understand that for millions of families this Christmas will be a sad joke and that the over-fed Scrooges on the Government Front Bench are responsible?

Mr. Godber: When the hon. Gentleman says that Christmas will be a bad joke for those people, he is saying that when his own party was in power each Christmas was an even worse joke. It is impossible for him to claim that things are so bad now and ignore the conditions his party left for us to take over.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we in this country spend only 19 per cent. of our income on food, the lowest percentage of any EEC country, and that the percentage is falling?

Mr. Godber: I cannot say without notice that the figure my hon. Friend gave is exactly right, but certainly the implications are very clear. We undoubtedly spend a lower proportion of our income on food. It has been gradually decreasing over the years and is now at the lowest point at which it has ever been.

Mr. David Clark: Does the Minister realise that people would be much more impressed if he tried to tackle the food problem instead of trying to make political points out of it? Does he agree that, in view of the massive percentage increases in food prices about which we have just heard, we shall find food prices in the early spring half as high again as they were when the Government took over? Does he realise that people are not impressed by his world food price argument in its entirety when we find that there are import duties and taxes on a variety of foods—beef, butter, cheese, bacon and cereals? It just does not add up.

Mr. Godber: I do not wish to comment on precisely where the price levels will go. It is very rare for any Minister to do so. But I have never hesitated to warn hon. Members, as I did the last time the matter was discussed, that there would be further rises. I have never tried to hide the situation from the public. If the hon. Gentleman encourages his hon. Friends not to seek to make political points, I shall promise not to make them, but when I am speaking to the public at large I give them the facts. I have given the House the facts today, and it is on those facts that people must judge.

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make immediate announcements about food price increases as they arise.

Mrs. Fenner: No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Lady aware that the Government's clandestine approach in stopping the Price Commission making food price increases known to the electorate is causing grave dissatisfaction throughout the country? Does she agree that hon. Members are being placed in an impossible situation when they cannot communicate with their constituents about exorbitant price increases? How can we get in touch with the Minister to find out the situation, so that we may participate in the good government that the Prime Minister has told us about?

Mrs. Fenner: It is for the manufacturers to announce their price increases.


It is the task of the Price Commission to restrict or reject such increases if they are inconsistent with the code. There is no need to duplicate the administrative task of making the announcement.

Mr. Wellbeloved: However frequently the hon. Lady's Department may seek to juggle with the figures, the plain fact is that for millions of less-well-off families there is now effective food rationing by price and that Britain faces becoming the worst-fed white nation in Western Europe.

Mrs. Fenner: The Question related to the announcements of price increases. I have answered it by saying that making the announcements is a task for the manufacturers.

Annual Farm Price Review

Sir Robin Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will advance the date of the annual price review so as to give earlier relief to the problem of the dairy farmer.

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will advance the date of the annual farm review.

Mr. Godber: I have arranged to have the first plenary session leading up to the review on 6th December and a meeting to discuss the milk sector on 13th December. These preliminary meetings should help to ensure that we complete the first stage of the review process by the end of January. The Government will then do everything they can to complete and announce the determinations by about the end of February.

Sir Robin Turton: While I appreciate the decision which my right hon. Friend has reached in the interests of the agriculture industry, may I ask whether he will pay very great attention to the problem of the milk farmer? Is he aware that, although others have endured unparalleled increases in the costs of production and in loan charges on their overdrafts, the milk farmer alone has had the price of his product frozen and can get no compensation for those increases?

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend has made a perfectly valid point, which I accept. For the reasons which I have

had to give on a number of occasions, however, it is not possible for the Government to take action now. But this matter is very much in mind, and I am endeavouring to bring forward the review so that we can get the determinations announced at an earlier date.

Mr. Jay: If the Government are so worried about high feeding stuffs prices, why are they now imposing an import tax on barley imported into this country from outside the EEC?

Mr. Godber: The main point is that we are importing these foods from outside the Community at a price which in some cases is higher than that within the Community. It is the world price conditions which control what happens, and not the position in regard to levies and import charges. That is the disturbing factor. At the moment, however, there are signs that the world market price of cereals is beginning to recede and I hope that this will soon be reflected in the price.

Mr. Morrison: I know that what my right hon. Friend has said about the review will be welcomed. Is he aware, however, that, because of experience in the milk producing industry, confidence throughout the agriculture industry as a whole, and in particular in the livestock section, is hanging by a slightly thinner thread than it has been and that in consequence an early and generous review is necessary to reassure farmers? Secondly, will he take note of the National Farmers' Union survey, which shows that he will obtain support from townspeople as well as from country people in any measure he puts forward for the expansion of home agriculture?

Mr. Godber: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the latter point, but I share his desire to ensure that confidence is maintained. Our farmers certainly have a good record of increased production over the last three years, and I want to see it continue and expand.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if world prices continue to rise, the revenue which is collected and sent back to the Common Market through the levy system will also increase? Is it the case that as world prices soar, so too do the levies,


thus increasing prices far beyond what would otherwise have been necessary?

Mr. Godber: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is on a false point. In many of these cases the levy is suspended when the price rises above a certain level. Thus, high prices do not in the main mean a higher payment to the Community. We accepted certain undertakings in the Treaty of Accession for the payment of levies, but the levies are not necessarily increased by the level of world prices.

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to make an unusually early price review in 1974 and, in view of the changed position of the price review itself, if he will seek to review horticultural items at the same time early in the spring in future years.

Mr. Godber: We shall be starting the review discussions next month and hope to announce the determinations somewhat earlier than usual. The annual review was widened last year and now covers horticultural aspects over a wide field.

Mr. Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that horticulturists will very much welcome his reply, particularly in view of his answer to an earlier Question, that British horticulturists have done less to create a rise in the price of food than any other section of food producers?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. British horticulturists are playing and can continue to play an effective part in this. I am glad to see the way in which they are developing their production at the present time. I am sorry that they have had some disappointment over recent months in regard to the termination of the Horticulture Improvement Scheme, but the new scheme beginning in January will, I hope, encourage them further in the direction to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Mackie: Was it really necessary to stop the old scheme in the middle of the year when the new scheme will start in January, thereby upsetting so many horticulturists?

Mr. Godber: While I sympathise with that point, I must point out that a strict limitation of £47 million was placed by

Parliament on the total amount and that this had been reached by the very large increase in the number of applications which were made earlier this year. But I was glad to see those applications because they indicated the confidence which horticulturists have, despite the extra competition in the EEC. It would not have been practicable to extend the old scheme, and the important thing is to get the new one going as soon as possible.

Feeding Stuff Prices

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about cereal prices; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the price of cereals for animal feeding stuffs. Discussions with the farmers' unions on this question have been taking place since early August. I have made clear on a number of occasions that these matters will have to be dealt with at the forthcoming annual review.

Mr. Strang: Will the Minister answer the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and admit that there is a levy on some barley imports and that if world prices fall, as the Minister suggests is happening, the common agricultural policy will prevent us from getting anything like the benefit we should out of that reduction?

Mr. Godber: As prices fall, so we shall get a direct benefit. Although the levies are having impact in some cases, it is a marginal impact on cereal prices. With cereal prices it is the level of world prices that matters. There has been some reduction, I understand, and I believe that one feeding stuff manufacturer has reduced the price of some of his products by between £2 and £4·50 a ton.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: While we are discussing levies, may I suggest how to restore confidence to livestock farmers and prevent the fear of a repetition of what happened this year to feeding stuff prices? Will my right hon. Friend consider announcing now or in the near future that, if cereal prices rise as sharply


next year, he will consider putting a levy on the sale of cereals in order to keep down the price of feeding stuffs and thus establish a fund for that purpose?

Mr. Godber: That is an interesting proposal. I should be perfectly happy to discuss it with leaders of the NFU to see what their attitude would be towards it. However, I think there might be difficulty in getting unanimity of view on it.

Fishing Limits

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals Her Majesty's Government are making about the expansion of British fishing limits.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals Her Majesty's Government are making concerning the expansion of British fishing limits.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): The question of fishery limits is one of the issues to be discussed at next year's Law of the Sea Conference. In the meantime we will continue to act in accordance with existing international law.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that the announcement that the Government have no proposals concerning the limit is extremely disappointing, and that precisely because a conference is on the way it is essential that they should have some? Most of the maritime fishing nations are extending their limits, and it is essential that we have proposals at least for the inshore fleet. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the grave danger to fishing stocks in the North Sea through extensive industrial fishing by foreign countries? Will he put forward proposals for limiting that?

Mr. Stodart: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I did not say that we had no proposals. I said that the question of limits would be discussed at next year's Law of the Sea Conference. As it does not start until next June, it would be unwise at this stage to tell the House what proposals we have. As to fishing in the North Sea, within the next three weeks there is to be a meeting of

the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission here to discuss the problem.

Mr. Johnson: Bearing in mind that the deep-sea fleet has dearly bought a two-year peace in the Icelandic waters dispute, is the hon. Gentleman aware that leaders of the industry, both owners and unions, believe that there will be a great deal of collective humbug at the United Nations conference, spoken by China in particular and, of course, the Latin American States? What contingency planning is he doing? Is he talking with his EEC neighbours about a change in the 12-mile limits here, perhaps?

Mr. Stodart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman, whom I join in paying tribute to the attitude of the whole industry throughout the difficulties of the Icelandic dispute, that we are having frequent contacts with the industry and its views will be fully noted. We are also in contact with our EEC partners.

Diseased Elm Logs

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he intends to take to prevent diseased elm logs being moved from infected areas to other parts of Great Britain where Dutch elm disease is not widespread.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Although a workable compulsory scheme would pose considerable difficulties of enforcement, my right hon. Friend is considering seeking powers under the Plant Health Act 1967 to limit or prohibit the movement of diseased logs from one area to another.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful for that reply. As the Forestry Commission, the Association of Tree Surgeons, the Arboricultural Association and plant pathologists all agree that Dutch elm disease is being spread northwards by the movement of diseased elm logs, will my hon. Friend also consider insisting immediately that diseased logs are treated before movement? Surely that would be the best way of stopping the spread?

Mr. Stodart: That is precisely the power that my right hon. Friend is considering seeking, but I warn my hon. Friend that it will not be easy to monitor it, nor to be certain that every load of


logs has either had the bark stripped or been sprayed with an insecticide.

Food Import Levies

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what levies or duties are now being imposed on the imports of butter from outside the EEC into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Orme: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what import levies or duties are now charged on cheese imports into the United Kingdom from outside the EEC.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: After applying the monetary compensatory amounts, the present rates of levy applied to imports of butter and cheese from New Zealand under Protocol 18 are nil and £96·84 a ton respectively. From other countries outside the Community they are £195·38 a ton for butter and £255·05 a ton for cheddar cheese.

Mr. Marten: Is my hon. Friend aware that I will do anything within reason to help the Government to keep prices down? Will he welcome opposition by many of my hon. Friends and myself to the orders which the Government are about to introduce and other measures when they come before the House? Does he agree that such action would greatly strengthen the Government's popularity?

Mr. Stodart: I fully accept the sentiments which my hon. Friend has expressed, which I would fully expect from him. I do not think that the suggestion he has made would be acceptable to the Government.

Mr. Orme: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the figures he has announced to the House relating to basic foods are terrifying? Does he realise that they are foods, for example, cheese—which older people buy and eat in considerable quantities because of their need for nourishment and because of the cost of other foods? What will the Government do about offsetting the levies? Will they introduce subsidies to take prices back to their previous level, or will they allow food prices to escalate in the present manner?

Mr. Stodart: It may help the hon. Gentleman and the House if I say that New Zealand cheese is selling at the

same price as it was 22 months ago and that butter is cheaper by 7p per lb than it was before accession in 1972.

Mr. Powell: Would prices of these articles be lower today if the duties and levies were not applied by the EEC?

Mr. Stodart: I do not think that that necessarily follows.

Mr. Jay: If the Government want to keep down food prices, why do they not remove these taxes forthwith?

Mr. Stodart: Perhaps I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that the system of levies is a basic part of the common agricultural policy, which the Opposition said was not negotiable. The CAP has shown its flexibility by subsidising prices to the effect which I have described.

Mr. Shore: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's honesty. He has come clean. How can he reconcile what he has told the House—namely, that approximately £200 a ton is imposed by food taxes on imported food—with his previous statement and the statement of his right hon. Friend that the main or sole cause for rising prices in Britain is the rise in world prices?

Mr. Stodart: I should not have thought' that there was the slightest discrepancy.

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what import duties or levies are now imposed on beef imports into the EEC.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what import duties or levies are now imposed on beef imports into the EEC.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: As there are a large number of figures involved, I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Atkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he has run away from his responsibility to give to the House accurate information for the purpose of questioning Ministers further? Will he confirm that there is a levy on beef at a time when most housewives are unable


to purchase it? If we were not a member of the EEC, would the Government now be imposing a levy or a tax upon beef?

Mr. Stodart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the answer to his Question is comprised of a large number of figures and that it would not be practicable to read the figures in an oral answer.
At the moment the levy is so small that it hardly exists. The maximum levy is £0.5394 per cwt, which is slightly under a halfpenny a pound. The minimum levy is £0.0725 per cwt, which is almost incalculably small. Each of those figures is far smaller than the duty which was imposed before accession on nearly all beef imports—namely 5 per cent.

Mr. Body: Is it the case that the levies do not necessarily affect the price of beef, butter and cheese? If that is so, what is the point of imposing the levies?

Mr. Stodart: The levies are a part, as I have already told the House, of the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Stallard: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm what a recent survey has suggested—namely, that we are eating less beef per head than in the last months of meat rationing? Will he accept that that suggestion, plus the fantastic price of cheese and bacon—bacon being 12s. 6d. per 1b in my constituency—means that many old people are finding it almost impossible to maintain a reasonably high protein diet that is necessary for their existence?

Mr. Stodart: No. I think I am right in saying that the consumption of cheese is higher. [HON. MEMBERS: "Beef".] The hon. Gentleman mentioned cheese in his last sentence. He suggested that the consumption of beef was now lower than it was in the last stages of rationing. It is not if we take into account, as is only reasonable, the fact that so much more food is eaten away from home than it was at the end of rationing.

Mr. Shore: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that a major cause of the rise in meat prices in Britain during the past year is the export of meat from Britain to the EEC, where prices are much higher? Is it not the case that the only exchange

of commodities with the EEC on which our balance of trade has improved in the past 10 months is in the export of meat of which we are exporting so much more?

Mr. Stodart: The right hon. Gentleman is being too disingenuous for words. He knows well that the habit has grown up, which I do not think is a bad habit, of people eating in canteens rather than going home for a midday meal.

Following is the information:—

EEC DUTIES AND LEVIES ON FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF IMPORTED FROM THIRD COUNTRIES

Current duty and levy rates are as follows:


Original EEC and Denmark


Full Duty
Levy


20 per cent.
Current rates listed below




United Kingdom


Full Duty
Levy


Bone-in: 4 per cent. plus £0·2488 per cwt.
Nil


Boned/Boneless: 8 per cent.
—




Irish Republic


Full Duty
Levy


4 per cent. plus £4·4092 per 100 kgs.
Nil

Levy rates applied by original EEC and Denmark during the week beginning 19th November 1973:



£ per cwt.


Fresh/chilled Beef



Carcases, sides and compensated quarters
0·3145


Forequarters
0·2516


Hindquarters
0·3772


Other cuts—unboned
0·4715


Other cuts—boned/boneless
0·5394


Frozen Beef



Carcases, sides and compensated quarters
0·0906


Forequarters
0·0725


Hindquarters
0·1134


Unboned cuts
0·1359


Boned/boneless cuts:



Specified forequarter cuts
0·1134


Crop, chuck, blade and brisket cuts
0·1134*


Other cuts
0·1558


* Entry under this heading is subject to the production of a certificate issued by exporting countries on conditions laid down by the EEC. The form of certification has not yet been agreed between the Commission and the supplying countries.

Notes:

(a)The duty and levy rates shown do not include preferential rates such as the United Kingdom duty of 4 per cent. on all beef from the Commonwealth Preference Area.

(b)The amounts of duty chargeable on imports into the United Kingdom are mainly reduced to NIL under the monetary arrangements.

Intervention Board Payments

Mr. Deakins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been spent by the Intervention Board in payments to take foodstuffs off the market in 1973.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Up to 31st October £15,032,000 had been spent on intervention buying, £2,168,000 on aids to private storage and £441 in compensation to producer groups. For aids to private storage and payments to producer groups, the amount spent is provided from Community funds. The net cost of purchase into intervention is recovered from those funds when the product is sold.

Mr. Deakins: Will not this make food dearer in Britain? When will the Government seek to alter this wholly immoral aspect of the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Stodart: I must again repeat that this is one of the basic elements of the CAP, which the Opposition found was not negotiable. In any case, intervention buying is an alternative method of supporting agriculture, to which I believe every party agrees in principle. By intervention buying £15 million was spent solely on butter and skimmed milk powder and £2 million on private storage mainly to equal the cost of sugar storage which is recovered by levy from sugar manufacturers.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: Are not the Opposition constantly asking for the subsidising of agriculture, and is not the Intervention Board providing just that?

Mr. Stodart: Yes. That was a remark which was made by a distinguished Member on the back benches.

Animals (Transportation)

Miss Foxes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the conditions under which animals for slaughter are transported within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Fenner: Conditions for the transportation of farm animals within the United Kingdom are laid down in orders made under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950. They apply equally to animals for slaughter and those intended for other

purposes. I am satisfied that these orders provide adequate welfare safeguards.

Miss Fookes: Will my hon. Friend note that I find her answer distressingly complacent? What is the average distance travelled by animals from the point of production to the point of slaughter'?

Mrs. Fenner: I cannot without due notice provide the exact figure for my hon. Friend. We do not regard distances in the United Kingdom as the vital factor. We regard the conditions and adequacy of care during transport as vital. I am sorry if my hon. Friend believes that I am being complacent. We are continually working on legislation concerning present-day practices. We will continue to consult the organisations which are concerned.

Mr. Deakins: What powers does the Ministry have to control the movement of animals by sea, which is pertinent not only to exported animals but also to the traffic between Ireland and Britain?

Mrs. Fenner: Farm animals landed from Ireland must be rested and examined in daylight by a veterinary officer before they continue their journey. Thereby they are examined after their journey and prior to their journey, when all the other safeguards operate.

Mr. Burden: What steps have been taken to ensure that the regulations regarding transport and treatment of animals in transit have been met'? How many, if any, prosecutions or contraventions of the regulations have taken place in the past two years?

Mrs. Fenner: In order to ensure that the safeguards in the legislation are adhered to, we have officers who are continuously monitoring the situation, and the RSPCA has inspectors at almost every market. I have not the figures for prosecutions at the moment, and I will write to my hon. Friend.

Dairy Farming

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many inquiries have been received by divisional offices from dairy farmers regarding the grant for changing from dairy to beef production; and how many applications have been received by divisional offices regarding this grant to date.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Some 5,000 inquirers asked for and were sent copies of the explanatory leaflet about this scheme by the end of its first week of operation, and 753 of these have completed and returned application forms.

Mr. Howell: Is my hon. Friend aware that we have only six weeks' supply of butter in store and that stocks are falling? A similar position prevails in France, and the butter mountain is a myth. Many people connected with the dairy industry believe that these measures may lead very soon to a shortage of dairy produce.

Mr. Stodart: I should point out that 753 applications from over 87,000 registered milk producers are only about 0·9 per cent. of the total. I have taken the opportunity to advise dairy farmers individually that they should consider very carefully the long-term results before going out of milk, in which considerable capital is locked up, and the taxation issues as well.

Mr. Strang: Is this scheme not an illustration of monumental absurdity, even by the standards of the EEC bureaucracy? The scheme is an attempt to get people out of dairy farming while another scheme is actually paying them to stay in it.

Mr. Stodart: If I interpret the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is referring to the hill directive, which, of course, deals solely with producing cheese in the mountain areas.

Stubble Burning

Mr. Gorst: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation containing stricter measures to deal with the burning of stubble; and if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT actual or estimated figures showing the cost of damage caused by such fires during the past five years.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) on 18th October.—[Vol. 861, c. 254–5.] I regret that the information requested in the second part of the Question is not available.

Mr. Gorst: Will my hon. Friend take account of the fact that the incineration of the countryside and the destruction of hedges and trees is not declining but is increasing year by year and is a hazard not merely to the farming community but also to the environment as a whole?

Mr. Stodart: I take the point. My information is that there have been fewer incidents this year, certainly as regards call-outs of fire brigades, than there were last year. But I attach great seriousness to the point which my hon. Friend has made.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister how many ministerial broadcasts he has made since June 1970.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) on 13th November.—[Vol. 864, c. 73.]

Mr. Meacher: Since in a recent broadcast the Prime Minister rightly said that what is now at stake is Britain's rôle in the world, and since under the present policy it is virtually certain that the present Government cannot close the import-export gap or afford to devalue further, is it not now obvious that the country has voted with its feet for a different kind of society with less growth but more power-sharing and more fairness? Since the right hon. Gentleman is incapable of delivering it, ought he not to make way for those who can?

The Prime Minister: How the hon. Gentleman can draw that conclusion from the last four by-elections, when the total Labour vote was behind our vote at Hove alone, I cannot imagine.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very many people feel that there is nothing this country cannot do if Government policy gets the support of the whole country? Is there not every advantage in his going on television as often as possible to put this across? Is it not also the case that, even if the Leader of the Opposition goes on television after my right hon. Friend, there is still an advantage to the Government?

The Prime Minister: I am greatly encouraged by my hon. Friend's request.

Dr. Marshall: asked the Prime Minister when he plans to make his next ministerial broadcast.

The Prime Minister: The House should assume that, unless and until I make a statement to the contrary, I do not intend to make a further ministerial broadcast.

Dr. Marshall: Will the Prime Minister seek to make a television appearance at an early date in order to explain to the nation the exclusion from the scope of the pensioners' bonus all those in receipt of invalidity and widows' pensions as well as an estimated 37,000 people who will become retirement pensioners by Christmas Day but will not reach pensionable age until after 2nd December?

The Prime Minister: I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Concerning those receiving pensions after the relevant date, this is bound to be so, whatever date is fixed. I can appreciate the particular difficulty about Christmas, but I know of no administrative way in which one can deal with such a matter. These arrangements were made, as the hon. Gentleman knows, after discussion with Post Office staffs. We chose the date most helpful to them. I am afraid that this is one of the anomalies that arise. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has explained the other problems about going wider that the pensioners themselves. When one tries to carry out an operation of this kind, the administrative difficulties are very great.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that research will show that, in the first three years when his Government were in power, the Leader of the Opposition made eight or nine ministerial broadcasts, as against the three broadcasts of my right hon. Friend? I hope that my right hon. Friend will not pay attention to numbers but will maintain the quality, as he has done so far.

The Prime Minister: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. John Silkin: Returning to the question of invalidity pensions, does the Prime Minister recall that 12 months ago one of

his hon. Friends gave almost the same reason for not paying invalidity pensioners last year as the Prime Minister has given this year? In other words, it was said that there was not enough time to do it before Christmas. Does this mean that the Government require over 12 months to make these administrative arrangements, or is there a change in Government policy?

The Prime Minister: That is not really the point. When we had the discussions with the CBI and the TUC, the question was as to the best way in which we could then show that we wanted to give extra help to pensioners, additional to their annual uprating. We did a very substantial uprating, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in the autumn, bringing the total payment to 55 per cent. above what pensioners were receiving in 1970. The additional amount which we were able to give was, I am afraid, limited only to pensioners.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAMBETH

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Lambeth.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Fraser: If the right hon. Gentleman is not visiting Lambeth, will he acquaint himself with the dimensions of the housing crisis there? Is he aware that we have in Lambeth 15,000 families living like permanent refugees in their own borough? Has not the Prime Minister learnt that the problems of stress areas like Lambeth are quite insoluble within their own boundaries, that we need to build dwellings outside those boundaries and that improvement grants do not help? Why have the Government retrospectively cut reckonable expenditure on the maintenance of council dwellings, which leads in turn to an actual cut in housing subsidies?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the problems which Lambeth has been experiencing. As the hon. Gentleman will know, they are under discussion with the Department of the Environment. The particular problems have been in tendering, but I am told that half the current year's programme has already been approved.

Mr. John Wells: Will my right hon. Friend change his mind about paying an official visit to Lambeth, go there as soon as possible, call on the Archbishop and explain why the Government are not providing heat in churches on Sundays?

The Prime Minister: I lunched with the Archbishop a week ago but he did not ask that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF

Mr. Ashton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint Mr. Victor Feather to his Central Policy Review Staff.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The House should assume that I do not intend to announce in advance appointments to the Central Policy Review Staff unless and until I make a statement to the contrary.

Mr. Ashton: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the advice he gets from all the other experts merely gets him into a bigger and bigger mess? Any commonsense trade union leader will tell him that, if a miner can get £40 a week driving a lorry, he will not go down the pit for £35. This is why 600 men every week are leaving the coal mining industry. Do not the right hon. Gentlemen's experts know this?

The Prime Minister: It is precisely because of this sort of problem that there has been established a prices and incomes policy, approved by Parliament, and why the offer which has been made to the miners is better than most other groups in the community are likely to receive. It would, therefore, improve the miners' position relative to others and, of course, there would not be leapfrogging under the code, which would enable them to maintain it.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Government side of the House were disappointed that Conservative councillors on Bradford City Council felt unable to support the freedom of that city being granted to Mr. Victor Feather?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that many Members of the House would feel exactly the same as my hon. Friend has said. As the House realises, however,

these are matters which the local authority representatives must decide.

Oral Answers to Questions — WANDSWORTH

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Prime Minister if he will visit the London borough of Wandsworth.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Cox: Is the Prime Minister aware that, following the collapse of his economic policy, some of those hardest hit will be local authorities, such as Wandsworth, which are trying to overcome social problems caused by, first, increased costs and, secondly, the private developers whom we are trying to fight off because they have no interest in the borough or the people? The private developers are interested solely in the money which they can make. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that, instead of writing to Tory candidates in Wandsworth, he should come to the borough and meet the elected representatives who have to try to solve the problems?

The Prime Minister: Housing is a matter for the local authority to organise. We have placed no restriction on its house building. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yardsticks."] Concerning the use of private developers, that again is a matter for local authorities. But I cannot help noticing that in many parts of London, Labour authorities are using private developers to the utmost.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: If my right hon. Friend visits Wandsworth or any other Labour-controlled borough in London, will he point out to the local authority that the acquisition at almost any price of any house coming on to the market does not add any property to the housing stock?

The Prime Minister: That is quite true.

Mr. Pardoe: Are not the repeated assertions that the right hon. Gentleman's Government are putting nothing in the way of local authorities building houses totally misleading and not believed by anyone in local government? In the first six months of this year, as a result of Government policy, Cornish local authorities were able to start only 135 local


authority houses compared with 435 in the same period last year. What will the right hon. Gentleman do about that?

The Prime Minister: That is certainly not the result of Government restrictions on local authority building.

Oral Answers to Questions — URBAN RENEWAL

Mr. Carter: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint to the Central Policy Review body a member with special responsibility for urban renewal.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) on 8th November.—[Vol. 863, c. 1165–6.]

Mr. Carter: When will the Prime Minister and the Government take seriously the grave problems of our major cities? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, of every three people who now come to my advice bureau, two come about housing, or related matters? What specific proposals have he and his Government to deal with the quite appalling housing conditions in our major cities?

The Prime Minister: These have been explained in the White Paper. Birmingham is one of the towns in the six town studies launched by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment. As I understand it, Birmingham is glad to be treated in this way.

Mr. Ridley: Could not the answer to the problem raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) be to encourage the property developers instead of trying to blame them for all our economic problems?

The Prime Minister: There are many areas of the country which have greatly benefited from them. There are certain new towns which have developed the technique of using property developers for very rapid development of housing in the new towns, and some of them that I have seen have certainly been comparable in price with what can be obtained outside, and in some cases cheaper.

Mr. Stonehouse: If the so-called "think tank" is to have any value, is it not vital that it should be completely objective?

What steps is the Prime Minister taking to ensure its independence of thought and action?

The Prime Minister: It has complete independence of thought and action. It is part of the Cabinet Secretariat. It is, therefore, under the Estacode, which is the rules for the rest of the Civil Service; but otherwise it is completely free in thought and action.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Prime Minister if he will discuss the working of the Industrial Relations Act when he next meets the CBI and the TUC.

The Prime Minister: In my meetings with the CBI and TUC this year, I have made it clear that I am ready to discuss this matter with them on any appropriate occasion.

Mr. Bidwell: Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman discusses the working of the Industrial Relations Act, does he not now realise that the sequestration of the political funds of the AUEW, which is really attacking the funds of the Labour Party, and the latest NIRC verdict on the Transport and General Workers' Union, arising from the dispute at Heathrow Airport, have turned back the clock by three-quarters of a century? Is it not even now dawning on the right hon. Gentleman that the Industrial Relations Act is utterly useless in bringing about the harmony in industry which the nation so desperately requires?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I cannot accept that. The two cases which the hon. Gentleman mentions had nothing in common. In the first case the union refused to take any part in the proceedings before the court and did not state its case, though it was perfectly open to the union to do so. In the second case the union did state its case, and the matter is still open to appeal.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no fewer than 15,000 cases of unfair dismissal have been dealt with under the Act?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that the figure now is rather larger than that. But this shows that individual trade


unionists have had absolutely no doubt about resorting to the court where they thought that they had a grievance. A very large proportion of these cases has been settled by conciliation. Only in a minority of cases has a judgment been necessary.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that only a few days ago he said from the Dispatch Box, in relation to the AEUW problem of the political fine, that the union would be well advised to follow the Transport and General Workers' Union in defending itself in court? Is that sound advice now?

The Prime Minister: I have never made a reference in the House to a political fine. [Interruption.] I do not now see how right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition can carry out what they claim to be observance of the law if they accuse one of the High Courts of this country of being a political institution.

Oral Answers to Questions — LANARKSHIRE

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Lanarkshire.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Since the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to visit Lanarkshire, may I remind him that, although the unemployment figures there have decreased, 4·7 per cent. of the insured population are still unemployed? Is he aware that in my constituency there are seven empty factories, two of which have recently been vacated by industrialists who came there, received all the grants and, after six years—in the last instance—packed up and left? Will he give his attention to this, with the Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry, because it requires further investigation?

The Prime Minister: I am prepared to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends at the DTI to look into the particular case of Lanarkshire, which I know well. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fall in unemployment. He will welcome the fact that it is down by more than 600. The

rate now is down to 4·6 per cent. However, the last thing that one wants is that firms should leave factories, particularly Government factories, which they are at present occupying. But one can ensure the prosperity of a place like Lanarkshire only with an expanding economy.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the answer to Question No. Q3, in which the Prime Minister intimated that he would not answer any more questions on the working of the Central Policy Review Staff? Over the last three years he has consistently narrowed the field in which he will accept Questions and on many occasions he has changed the practice of answering Questions. Is this one more step towards restricting the activities of back benchers in asking him Questions on this part of the Cabinet Secretariat?

Mr. Speaker: I will read the OFFICIAL REPORT and consider the hon. Member's question to see whether it has anything to do with me.

The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not say that I refused to answer Questions about the CPRS; I said that I would not announce in advance appointments of a particular kind.

Mr. Molloy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are back benchers on both sides who now know full well that there is a sense of frustration with the Clerks in the Table Office, who, when we table Questions, particularly to the Prime Minister, have to dig out all sorts of reasons why they cannot accept a Question that a Member puts down, because of the connivance of the staff at 10 Downing Street, probably on the instruction of the Prime Minister, to shield the right hon. Gentleman because he has not the courage to face the Questions that hon. Members wish to put down.

Mr. Speaker: I said that I would examine the answer to see whether there was anything in this matter to do with me. I do not think that the situation is helped by that kind of insinuation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Bill.
Motion relating to the Statement of Change in Immigration Rules for Control on Entry of EEC and other non-Commonwealth Nationals.
TUESDAY 27TH NOVEMBER—Debate on European Community affairs, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 28TH NOVEMBER—Supply (2nd Allotted Day).
Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition Motion on teachers' pensions, and afterwards on an Opposition motion on Chile.
THURSDAY 29TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill.
Remaining stages of the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Bill.
FRIDAY 30TH NOVEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 3RD DECEMBER—Supply (3rd Allotted Day).
Debate on a motion to take note of the eight reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in Session 1972–73, and the related departmental reports.

Mr. Wilson: On Tuesday's business, the right hon. Gentleman will know that we should have preferred a debate on an early day motion that we are tabling, although I gather from what he announced that it will not be possible for us to move it.
On an entirely separate question, on behalf of those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who will not this afternoon be seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in the debate on Northern Ireland, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to express to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on behalf of those of us who will not be speaking our congratulations

and delight at what he was able to announce last night?

Mr. Prior: I think that the whole House will wish to join in the kind remarks of the right hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend. I am very grateful to him for those remarks.
The European Community affairs day has been arranged primarily to allow views to be expressed about regional policy before the Council meeting on 3rd and 4th December. However, the form of debate will also give an opportunity to those who wish to raise other issues, such as the common agricultural policy.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that I might require to ask him to let me have a debate on when an order will be laid for the Kielder Dam, since it is urgent that we should get such an order and I have seen two rather contradictory statements—one yesterday by the Secretary of State for the Environment, which differed considerably from something said by another Minister in his Department? As the order is needed to provide the water for industry, I may have to explode if I cannot get a satisfactory answer.

Mr. Prior: Anything to prevent that from happening. If I can help my hon. Friend to avoid that situation, I will get in touch with her.

Mr. Ford: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Early Day Motion No. 49, calling for the setting up of a Select Committee to consider a petition? Will he provide Government time for a debate on the motion so as to stop further bitterness building up on the matter?
[That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the presentation of an humble Address to the Crown praying for the dismissal of Sir John Donaldson, High Court judge and President of the National Industrial Relations Court, by reason of his Court's action in sequestrating £75,000 from the political fund of the engineering section of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, which is the fund as laid down by section 3, subsection 3, of the Trade Union Act 1913, and not the fund used for the day-to-day operation of the Union, and thereby ensuring that the punishment was solely inflicted on the


Union's political activities, namely, support given to the Labour Party and financial assistance rendered to the constituency parties of the Members of Parliament who are also members of that union for their election campaigns and routine organisation, because, if Sir John Donaldson was not aware of this action, he is guilty of gross negligence and incompetence and if he was aware then it was an act of political prejudice and partiality.]

Mr. Prior: I notice that many hon. Members have signed the motion, and also that there is an amendment to it which says:
this House recognises as a fundamental requisite of the rule of law in a democratic society that the judiciary is independent of all political pressure".
I certainly cannot find time for it in the next few weeks.

Mr. Powell: Will my right hon. Friend continue his search for an early opportunity to debate the recent report of the Select Committee on Immigration and Race Relations, especially in view of the disturbing evidence of grave under-enumeration by the Census?

Mr. Prior: Yes, I am continuing that search, and I know that the House will wish to debate that report at a reasonably early date.

Mr. McBride: Returning to Early Day Motion No. 49, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the serious legal position which arises in the sequestration of trade union funds which are protected by law? Is he aware that the motion, signed by 120 of my right hon. and hon. Friends, views with great concern the political attack on the Labour Party and its finances? We think that this attack is unjust and that a charge of incompetence against a judge of the High Court merits urgent and full discussion in the House.

Mr. Prior: I have nothing to add to the statement I have already made about finding time for this subject.

Mr. Money: Would my right hon. Friend have a look, as he said last Session he would, at the arrangements for organised delegations to the House, which are becoming totally impossible and verging on the farcical?

Mr. Prior: I am not quite certain what my hon. Friend is getting at. Could he explain a little further?

Mr. Money: Mass lobbying.

Mr. Prior: I should like to look at that. The problem in recent months, and particularly, of course, in recent weeks, has been security. However, if hon. Members have other views that they would like to put to me or through the Services Committee, then of course we can have a further look at this important matter.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the method of debate proposed for Tuesday is quite unsatisfactory. To have general, vague debates on matters of European economic policy, in which Ministers cannot be called to account for detailed actions and on detailed Votes, is no substitute for specific debates. We must have debates in which matters are specific. Does he not agree that it will have an even worse effect if the Government refuse to debate specific motions tabled by the Opposition and go ahead in taking action on that basis in Europe? Does he not think that the unsatisfactory character of this debate emphasises the urgent necessity for the Government to give their views on the report of the Select Committee which has examined this matter?

Mr. Prior: I do not regard the two matters as in any way related. I recognise that the House will want to come to an early decision on the Select Committee's report, and I shall arrange for this to take place. That is a totally separate matter from the debate which we have arranged for Tuesday next week—namely, a debate, in answer to a request from various sectors of the House, on Common Market affairs. If the form of the debate does not suit the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and his hon. Friends, it is up to them to table a motion for a debate on another day in their own time. It appears to me that they want the best of every possible world: they want to be able to vote on a little issue of their own choosing, and at the same time they do not want to divide themselves on the main issue.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early Day Motion No. 24:
[That this House calls upon the British Airports Authority and British Airways to retain the check-in system at the Cromwell Road Terminal at least until the rail link to Heathrow is open for passenger use.]
In view of recent developments can my right hon. Friend find time for a short debate on that matter next week or in the near future?

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend has asked me about that matter once or twice in recent weeks. I am afraid that I cannot give him any more satisfaction this week than I have in answer to earlier business questions. However, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to see whether there is anything further he can do.

Mr. David Watkins: May I press the Leader of the House on Early Day Motion No. 49? That motion relates to the unsuitability of Sir John Donaldson to be president of the Industrial Relations Court. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that 132 Opposition Members have already signed that motion. In view of this unprecedented declaration by hon. Members of this House of no confidence in a High Court judge, should not the Leader of the House treat this as a matter of urgency to be resolved quickly?

Mr. Prior: I do not think necessarily the form of the motion makes it any more desirable that it should be debated in this House. I see no time available for debate of this nature. There is one course open to Labour Members on this matter. If they feel that a debate would not be very satisfactory—and I certainly think it would not be satisfactory—they could withdraw the motion.

Mr. John Wells: With reference to the debate on Wednesday on the subject of Chile, will my right hon. Friend say whether it will be in order to discuss the unpalatable rumour that a large number of Chilean "commie" anarchists are seeking refuge in this country, on which they have no claim whatever?

Mr. Prior: Luckily for me, it is not for me to say what will be in order for the debate on Wednesday, but I imagine

that the motion will be drawn fairly widely.

Mr. Faulds: In view of the speculation as to where the new Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mrs. MacDonald) will sit, may I, through the Lord President of the Council, extend an invitation to her to join a fellow Scot and to sit right here beside me on the back benches?

Mr. Prior: I think that she will certainly do something to brighten up the Opposition benches.

Mr. Body: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the White Paper on public exenditure will be published and how soon afterwards we shall a debate upon it?

Mr. Prior: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Chief Sectary said earlier in the week. It will be published within about a month. I do not think this will give us time for a debate before Christmas. However, I give an assurance that it will be debated as soon as we return after Christmas.

Mr. Ross: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government intend to give the House an opportunity to have a full discussion of the Kilbrandon Report?

Mr. Prior: It is a little early yet to say. We have had the report for just under a month. This is a subject which the House will wish to debate, but I believe that we should carry out a few consultations before we reach that stage.

Mr. Dell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that among the reports to be discussed on Monday week will be the Public Accounts Committee report on North Sea oil and gas? In that connection, it would be useful to know in advance what the Government intend to do in their Bill about exploitation of the United Kingdom continental shelf. Can he arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, perhaps next Monday, to make some announcement on the contents of that Bill—or do the Government not yet know what they propose to do?

Mr. Prior: I do not think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be ready by Monday next, or by the following week,


to make the announcement which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) requests. The best thing to do is to allow the debate to go forward so that we may listen to the views expressed in the House.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Leader of the House aware that on only four occasions since 1805 has a motion been placed on the Order Paper attacking a High Court judge for political bias? On that occasion Judge McClennan resigned because of the stigma thus caused. This is a serious motion, signed by 132 Members of Parliament. Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that in view of the rarity of this matter it should be debated by the House to put the judge either in the clear or out of his misery?

Mr. Prior: I do not think the rarity of a motion on the Order Paper necessarily makes it any more essential that it should be debated. This is not a matter which the House should take lightly. I can see no possibility of the Government providing time to debate a motion of this sort, and I wish to make no further comment on the matter.

Mr. Marten: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early Day Motion No. 48?
[That this House welcomes the assurance given by the Prime Minister on 13th November 1973 that consideration is being given to suspending the 8 per cent. tax on imported lamb; and, anxious to prevent any avoidable increase in food prices, urges Her Majesty's Government not to introduce those increases in tariffs and duties on imported foodstuffs arising out of Great Britain's membership of the Common Market, particularly those due to be introduced on or after 1st January 1974.]
That motion has been signed by a number of my hon. Friends and myself and is a genuine attempt to try to help the Government not to increase the price of food by putting on unnecessary taxes and tariffs. May we have a statement shortly on the success of the Government in their approach to the Common Market to stop these taxes being imposed?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir, but all these matters will be relevant in the debate on Tuesday. I know my hon. Friend's keen interest in helping the Government

out of embarrassing situations over the Common Market.

Mr. James Johnson: What is the right hon. Gentleman's attitude towards giving hon. Members Government time in which to debate fisheries? Since there have been no subsidies, it appears that we are being given no opportunity to debate deep-sea fishing and other matters. Does this mean that we shall lose all official opportunities to debate the finances of the fishing industry?

Mr. Prior: Our old occasions for debates on the fishing industry seem to have gone. I shall consider whether we can make arrangements to debate this important issue. I can see no hope of an immediate debate, but it is a matter which shall bear in mind.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Godber—statement.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order. I wish to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the exchanges which took place on Motion No. 49 in regard to Sir John Donaldson. It is an extremely serious matter when a motion of censure is held over the head of a High Court judge. As a consequence, particularly in view of the past associations of this judge with the Conservative Party, is it not incumbent on the Government to give time to allow the matter to be debated and cleared up. Furthermore—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that he is not raising a point of order. This matter is nothing to do with the Chair. I do not control either Government time or Opposition time. It has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Orme: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I was coming to the point of asking for your guidance on the presentation of articles of charge in this House, which have now fallen into disuse. Is it possible for hon. Members to present articles of charge in regard to this issue? Would you allow this to be done in this House next week?

Mr. Speaker: I should like to consider that matter, but I shall give a preliminary answer. The procedure mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is antiquated. [Interruption.] Order. I must be allowed


to answer a point of order without interruption, from wherever it comes. The article of charge procedure was before the time when the time of the House was appropriated in the way in which it is under our Standing Orders. However, I shall look at the point.

Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to seek your assistance and guidance. At your discretion you decided to terminate questions to the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House proposes that in next week's business the remaining stages of the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Bill shall be taken on Thursday after other business. That means that the remaining stages of this very important Bill, born out of the emergency situation, will inevitably be taken very late at night. I believe that this House should have the opportunity to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) is trying to get round the fact that I suspended questions on the business statement when I did. This is not a point of order. I had to conclude business questions. We have a statement and we have a very important debate on Northern Ireland to come, and I have to safeguard the time of the House. If an hon. Member is not able to ask his supplementary question before I suspend questions, he cannot be allowed to do so by way of a point of order. I am very sorry.

Mr. Eadie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that we are in a unique situation. The nation is in an emergency situation. I believe that, because of that, the people's representatives are entitled to put a proposition to the Leader of the House. Therefore—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must obey the rulings of the Chair and act within the rules of order.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—and it is a genuine point of order. You made a statement just now about articles of charge and you said that you would give your decision at a later date. As some of us might like to present arguments upon this and to bring along the appropriate law books, might we have some notice that this matter will be taken, say, next Tuesday

or Wednesday so that we might prepare evidence on it?

Mr. Speaker: I am ready to have all the help that I can receive. Before making this ruling, certainly I shall receive any help that I can from anyone. I will not make the ruling in a hurry. I prefer to wait until I have received any submissions that anyone cares to make to me. However, I do not think that this is a point of order. It is a point of helpfulness, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton).

AGRICULTURE (EEC MINISTERS' MEETING)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): I should like to make a statement on the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels this week.
The Council of Agriculture Ministers at its meeting on 19th and 20th November held a first exchange of views on the Commission's proposals for the improvement of the common agricultural policy. There were, naturally, differences of emphasis and approach between Ministers, but substantial support for the general aims of the review—to contain expenditure and consumer prices; to improve the balance of supply and demand and reduce surpluses; and to simplify the support system and improve financial control. The Commission's proposals will now be the subject of detailed study in the Special Agricultural Committee followed by fuller consideration by the Council of Ministers.
The Council also agreed on the framework of a directive on aids for farming in mountain and other less favoured areas. The main lines of this directive follow broadly the forms of support covered by our own arrangements for help in the hill farming areas. As the House knows, these mainly take the form of subsidies for beef cattle and sheep production in the hills, and there are also special rates of capital grant for hill land improvement. These will be covered under the criteria of the new draft directive.
The directive also provides that dairy cattle in the true mountain areas shall


receive aid on the same terms as beef cattle. In the lower hill and less favoured regions payments for dairy cows will be restricted to 10 cows in each herd and at a rate of not more than 80 per cent. of that given for beef cattle. All these aids will be applicable at the discretion of each member State. The specific areas in which it is proposed to apply them will be designated by the member States and will be subject to approval by the European Commission and the Council of Ministers.
These payments will be subject to a contribution from Community funds, the actual rate of which will be determined only after a clear indication of the total cost can be established once the areas have been defined. The intention, however, is that these contributions should be not less than 25 per cent. and not more than 50 per cent. for livestock and should be 25 per cent. of the cost of aid for improvements under development plans. The remaining cost will be borne by each individual member State. Final confirmation of the directive will only take place once the areas have been defined.
The general effect of these decisions is that they confirm the ability of the United Kingdom Government to continue paying grants and subsidies on the broad lines at present in force for hill areas, and when the directive has come into force the cost of these will be reimbursed in part from FEOGA funds. This is an important reassurance to our hill farmers and a confirmation of the undertaking which the Government have always given that we would seek freedom to continue within the Community to give a comparable degree of support to our hill farmers to that which has previously been provided.
The Council meeting, which was a lengthy one, also discussed a number of other matters ranging from olive oil to alcohol.

Mr. Shore: The Minister will know that we understand that this is only the preliminary or first exchange on the most important matter of the possible reform of the common agricultural policy. However, does he not agree that the opening statements really constitute a thoroughly bad start to this most important matter which has to be reviewed and, we hope,

fundamentally reformed? Is it not the case that the basic features of the CAP—self-sufficiency, Community preference, and the mechanisms of the levy, other intervention buying and so on—are to be continued and that he and other Ministers on the Council have agreed to these fundamental features continuing? Is not the result that the framework of the discussions is pre-set by these continued assumptions and, therefore, that the possibilities of change are very small and very limited?
To bring the matter out more clearly, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he himself has made any proposals at this stage for withdrawing certain commodities from the coverage of the CAP? Has he taken an initiative, for example, in the case of sugar and that of rice—which are two wholly inappropriate commodities to be covered by the CAP—to withdraw them in the future from the coverage of the CAP? Has he at this vital preliminary stage raised the question of the financing of the CAP which lays such a disproportionately heavy burden on the British taxpayer?
Turning to hill farming, on which there has been more progress, I think that we all share the right hon. Gentleman's sense of disappointment at his inability to get the Community to accept, as I understood was his objective, the Community financing of hill farming for beef cattle and so on, and his failure to limit the new scheme so that it excluded dairy cattle, which apparently it now does.
In relation to the hill farming scheme, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any net benefit to Britain which will come to us arising out of these arrangements?

Mr. Godber: Dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's first points, I do not agree that this was a bad start to our discussions. The discussions will cover a very wide range and take a considerable time. It is much too early to say whether the result will be as good as some people hope or as bad as some people fear. I believe that there are reasonable prospects of getting significant changes of emphasis. We have always said that we accepted the principles of the CAP, as the Opposition did when they were in power. For that reason it is not appropriate to take the right hon. Gentleman's analysis as being correct.
The withdrawal of particular commodities from the CAP certainly has not been raised. It would not be appropriate at this stage. But at any time when it would seem appropriate to consider any particular commodities in this way I shall not be opposed to doing so. However, I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's definition regarding the two commodities that he mentioned.
I must correct the right hon. Gentleman on one point about hill farming. We never expected the full cost of our hill subsidies to be borne by FEOGA funds. It has always been accepted that the FEOGA contribution would be a percentage towards that cost. At the moment no decision has been taken except that the range will be between 25 and 50 per cent. The main anticipation is that it will be about 25 per cent. It will depend on the result of the final schemes put before the Commission and the total estimate of the cost. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that in this way the Council is keeping control over the cost so that it should not get out of hand.
In the fully mountain areas dairy cattle will be included, and there will be the inclusion of small herds in the lower hill areas. But for the mountain areas, in particular, practically all these cattle are not involved in FEOGA contributions because their milk is used for cheese production, which does not figure in the support arrangements.

Mr. Charles Morrison: My right hon. Friend's statement will be of great encouragement to hill farmers and should be welcome to consumers as well because they will benefit from the increased production which will result. When does he expect these arrangements to operate? Will he confirm that existing hill subsidies will continue in the meanwhile and that all the areas in the United Kingdom which are currently eligible for hill subsidy will be eligible in the EEC scheme?

Mr. Godber: Yes. I certainly confirm that there will be no gap between the continuation of our existing schemes and the provisions under the new draft directive when it comes into force. It is difficult to say precisely when it will come into force, because each country has to submit its own areas, which have to be

approved by the Commission, and the Council then has to consider the total cost. Therefore, it would be unwise to attempt at this point to give a firm date. I assure my hon. Friend that the existing arrangements will continue in full until any Community arrangements are brought in. Our hill farmers may be assured that there will be continuing support for them whether provided from national funds or supported in part by Community funds.

Mr. English: The answer was "No".

Mr. Maclennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, as has been reported, that the special position of crofting grants was considered and that it has been secured? Secondly, will the existing levels of upland grant be maintained? Is it likely, as a result of the decision that has been taken about milk, that the Government will review their policy of not enabling the winter keep scheme, for example, to apply to milk farmers?

Mr. Godber: Existing schemes, such as the winter keep scheme, will continue to apply to the types of farm which already benefit from them. Regarding any of our dairy herds which might conform to the new proposals, we shall have to look at particular aspects, like winter keep, to see the extent to which they could conform. Much will depend on the exact terms of the directive, which has not yet been finalised.
The crofters' position was specifically raised by me with the Council of Ministers. This matter is not directly covered in the terms of the directive, but my statement about it was accepted by the Community, so we can continue with our present arrangements. We shall continue grants for crofters, so there is no risk for them in this regard. No time limit has been set, but the review as a whole is normally done on a five-year basis, and we can continue thereafter. The totality of the areas concerned is subject to revision and consideration by the Commission, but there is no reason to suppose that the whole of our areas will not continue to qualify.

Mr. Body: Will my right hon. Friend correct the statement in today's newspapers that the British people will be called upon to help subsidise a stockpile


of 75,000 tons of olive oil? Is not this a grotesque error by the Press?

Mr. Godber: I have not seen the report to which my hon. Friend refers. I mentioned that olive oil was discussed. The proposal is that out of a total Italian production of about 400,000 tons of olive oil arrangements should be made for stockpiling in the early part of the season. This is to ensure that a correct record is kept so that there can be no question of abuse of FEOGA funds. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that proposal.

Mr. Mackie: The Minister knows only too well the difficulty that was experienced in defining areas in this country. Are there to be any common criteria between countries on defining areas?

Mr. Godber: The criteria in general have been laid down for the types of animal which will qualify. Mountainous areas are specified as being above 600 metres. Other areas are laid down in general terms in the articles, but each country will submit areas which will be examined by the Commission according to the criteria. I understand that all our areas would properly come within those terms.

Mr. Marten: Was the proposal to tax farmers on surplus milk raised? If so, was my right hon. Friend's view expressed to the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Godber: This matter was mentioned, although only in general terms because we had what approximated to a First Reading debate on these matters. I

made the United Kingdom Government's position quite clear; namely, that we thought that a general tax on all milk production was so similar to a reduction in price that it would be more straightforward to have a reduction in price. Concerning the proposal for a tax on milk products going from dairies into intervention, there is a strong case for some form of tax as a direct discouragement to the production of surpluses.

Mr. Jay: Which food commodities will be reduced in price in this country as a result of these latest deliberations?

Mr. Godber: I cannot give any particular figure to the right hon. Gentleman of the upward or downward effect on costs, but there will be no immediate effect of any kind as a result of these proposals. What is of importance is the longer-term position and I hope that this will be helpful.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

Mrs. Margo MacDonald, for Glasgow, Govan.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 10TH DECEMBER

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. David Stoddart.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown.

Mr. John Cordle.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]

4.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): This afternoon I intend to set out in detail the results of recent political developments and discussions. It is, however, important to see these in the correct perspective of the general situation in Northern Ireland. Serious acts of violence continue. Nor are these confined to any one group of terrorists or criminals. Our primary task, therefore, must be to eradicate violence from the community and, of course, the reasons behind the violence.
The eradication of violence is a major task for our security forces, police and Army. Their achievements in the pursuit of terrorists and criminals and in the detection of crime are impressive. But no one should be under any illusions. Still more has to be done. In this work our security forces deserve all the support that can he given to them. Certainly their bearing and morale are beyond praise. But, just as it is true that political actions on their own cannot cure violence, so it is equally certain that we owe it to our security forces to provide the best foundations for their work. That was the purpose of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, passed with the overwhelming support of this House, which provides the basis of what I have to say.
Now that the first stage of consultations leading to the establishment of devolved government in Northern Ireland have been brought to a conclusion it is right that I should report to the House the nature of the agreements which have so far been reached. The House should be the first to know the full nature of these agreements, and I am grateful to the Northern Ireland parties concerned for refraining from comment until I had the opportunity this afternoon to disclose the details of those agreements.
Over the past seven weeks I have had a series of intensive discussions in Northern Ireland with the Alliance Party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party and the Ulster Unionist Party. The

Northern Ireland Labour Party, while supporting the principles of the Constitution Act, agreed that I should confine my substantive discussion to the three parties. All the other parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly had previously made it known to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to me in discussion that they were not prepared to participate in an Executive.
The three parties with which I have been in discussion were, however, prepared to operate the Northern Ireland Constitution Act and had indicated their willingness to search for a basis upon which an Executive might be formed within the provisions of that Act. I am grateful to the House for its forbearance in accepting that it was essential that these talks should be conducted on the basis of confidentiality. I would also like to pay tribute to the spirit in which the party leaders and the delegations held to their initial agreement that confidentiality should be maintained.
It is now my duty to give the House an account of the talks and their conclusion. Throughout I have had three objectives in mind. The first is that any agreement reached must be within the terms of the Constitution Act, and the parties agreed from the outset that talks should be on this basis. The Act requires me in due course to bring before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council devolving powers to the Executive and Assembly.
To do so two requirements must be fulfilled. First, the Northern Ireland Assembly must have made satisfactory provision by its Standing Orders in accordance with Section 25 of the Act which lays down certain essentials about procedure. The first statutory requirement has been met in that the Standing Orders of the Northern Ireland Assembly have now been passed. I am satisfied that they conform with the requirement of Section 2(1)(a) of the Constitution Act. Some of the Standing Orders were the subjects of debate and disagreement. I am only required in considering the Standing Orders to satisfy myself that they contain the provisions specified in the Act.
There is, secondly, the requirement
that a Northern Ireland Executive can be formed which, having regard to the support it commands in the Assembly and to the


electorate on which that support is based, is likely to be widely accepted throughout the community.
Clearly, there must be a large measure of agreement between the parties on major policy issues. Those parties, having made known their position, must declare their willingness to work together and to bring about the practical arrangements necessary for that purpose. An aim of my talks, therefore, was to use my best endeavours to bring about the maximum possible measure of agreement between the parties.
Third, and most important, Her Majesty's Government have to keep in mind their continuing responsibilities to this House, if the devolution order is to be made, for those matters in Northern Ireland which continue for the time being to be reserved to Westminster. One of our purposes in dividing responsibility for government and administration in Northern Ireland between the Assembly and the Executive, on the one hand, and this Parliament and Her Majesty's Government, on the other, was to reduce as far as possible the number of contentious issues which might make it difficult for the parties in Northern Ireland to reach agreement.
I am glad to say that we have made a good start in achieving this object. All three parties have reached agreement on a statement of aims and policies in the social and economic sphere. This achievement should not be underrated, because there are big differences of approach and philosophy on some of these matters between the parties in Northern Ireland just as there are between the parties in this House. These differences have been resolved by good sense, a spirit of compromise and a willingness to put the welfare and prosperity of all the people of Northern Ireland in the forefront.
Her Majesty's Government have taken note of these economic and social aims, and, while our position must be reserved as to the financial or other support which we shall be prepared to give any particular element of the programme, it is the firm intention of Her Majesty's Government to afford significant assistance to Northern Ireland in its economic and social rehabilitation. It was this willingness to reach agreement that created a situation at the beginning of this week in

which it was possible for the parties to consider both with me and among themselves the possibility of agreeing to form an Executive.
It has always been understood among the parties that it would be in no one's interest to form an Executive unless there was agreement on all the issues under discussion. The major matter outstanding is the Council of Ireland, which involves the Government of the Republic of Ireland. We hope soon that the parties which have signified their willingness to serve in the Northern Ireland Executive will meet representatives of Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland to discuss how a Council of Ireland might be set up. I will say more about this later.
The intention is that this preliminary conference will lead to the formal appointment of a Northern Ireland Executive and, subject to the approval of Parliament, to the devolution of full powers to that Executive and to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The composition and nature of such an Executive has now been agreed. I reminded the House earlier of the nature of the support which the Act makes a pre-requisite to the formation of that Executive. Under a later section of the Act it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to appoint persons to hold office under the new structure. Under Section 8 of the Act the Secretary of State is restricted to 12 such appointments, not all of which have to be within the Executive. When we came to these discussions we found this provision somewhat restrictive. There is no intention on my part or on the part of the parties concerned to increase the size of the Executive. On the contrary, it is proposed that the Executive should be confined, both now and for the future, to 11 persons. If this is so, there needs to be some flexibility in making additional appointments outside the Executive.
The agreement which has been reached will, if the House agrees, since further legislation would be required, involve an Executive of 11 and an Administration of 15. The Executive will comprise six members of the Ulster Unionist Party, four members of the Social Democratic and Labour Party and one member of the Alliance Party. Mr. Brian Faulkner,


Ulster Unionist, will be the chief executive designate, and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), Social Democratic and Labour Party, will be the deputy chief executive officer designate. Mr. Oliver Napier, Alliance Party, will be the legal member and in charge of the Office of Law Reform. In regard to this appointment, I should make it clear that his duties will in no way conflict with the position of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, as the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland.
The further allocation in the Executive is as follows: head of the Department of Finance, Ulster Unionist; head of the Department of Commerce, Social Democratic and Labour Party; head of the Department of Health and Social Services, Social Democratic and Labour Party; head of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning, Social Democratic and Labour Party; head of the Department of Environment, Ulster Unionist; head of the Department of Education, Ulster Unionist; head of the Department of Agriculture, Ulster Unionist; and head of the Department of Information Services, Ulster Unionist. The four appointments outside the Executive will be the Chief Whip, Ulster Unionist; the Office of Manpower Services, Alliance Party; the Office of Community Relations, Social Democratic and Labour Party; and the Office of Executive Planning and Co-ordination, Social Democratic and Labour Party. This allocation was agreed between the parties, and the leaders of the parties will nominate those whom they propose will be appointed to these posts. There will, in addition, be a Deputy Chief Whip outside the administration, who will be an Assembly member of the Alliance Party.
Next I come to the Council of Ireland. In the White Paper which the Government published in March this year, we said that the United Kingdom favoured, and was prepared to facilitate, the formation of such a body.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Does the principal of collective responsibility apply to this Executive?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes.
I come to the Council of Ireland.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East): Does this mean that there will be an amendment of Section 8 of the Act?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope I made it clear that this proposal, which would reduce the Executive from 12 to 11 and would provide four other posts outside the Executive, would mean an amendment of Section 8 of the Constitution Act and, therefore, fresh legislation in this House.
Next I come to the Council of Ireland. In the White Paper which the Government published in March this year, we said that the United Kingdom favoured, rind was prepared to facilitate, the formation of such a body. We also pointed out that, if the Council of Ireland was to be more than a mere statutory concept and become a useful working mechanism in North-South relations, it must operate with the consent of both majority and minority opinion in Northern Ireland who have a right to prior consultation and involvement in the process of determining its form, functions and procedure. Because agreement in Northern Ireland itself is a necessary precondition to a successful Council of Ireland, Her Majesty's Government have up to now refrained from expressing a view on the form a Council might take. But, in the light of discussions which I have had, it seems to me now to be helpful to say what propositions about a Council of Ireland we would be prepared to agree to and support in discussions with the Government of the Republic which must shortly be undertaken.
It has become clear in my talks that there is a general wish that a Council of Ireland should be confined to representatives of the North and the South of Ireland—that is to say, that there should be no representatives of the United Kingdom Government on the Council. This is acceptable to Her Majesty's Government as regards devolved subjects, although arrangements will be necessary to safeguard Her Majesty's Government's interests in the areas of finance and other reserved subjects.
As to structure, Her Majesty's Government think that the Council should consist not only of representatives of the Government of the Republic and of the Northern Ireland Executive—that is, at governmental level—but also, on a


separate advisory and consultative basis, of representatives from the parties from the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly. We also think that the Council should have its own secretariat.
In order that decisions of the Council should carry the greatest possible degree of support among the people of the North and the South, we think that its decisions at governmental level should be taken on a basis of unanimity.
In additon to those functions operating in the area of subjects which will be devolved to an Executive, we think that the Council should be able to play a useful rôle in relation to certain subjects reserved for the time being to the United Kingdom Government. If this were to happen, Her Majesty's Government would, of course, need to be represented on the Council, at least when these subjects were under discussion. What our rôle should be and how United Kingdom interests should be represented is a matter which needs to be agreed, but there is scope here which can bring great advantage to both North and South, particularly in the vital area of security.
There has been introduced in the talks the imaginative and important concept of a common law enforcement area, and we think that there should be discussions on this and on the question of extradition procedures and what rôle the Council might play in the law and order field. It will be a clear advantage to all sides if advances can be made in the law and order field which will bring to bear all the resources of the North and the South to deal with the problem of terrorism, and if imaginative arrangements can be made both of a judicial and an organisational kind. Now I must turn to what is being called a tripartite conference

Mr. Dick Douglas: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point of the Council of Ireland, which is very important indeed, can he give us some indication of what discussions he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland regarding their recognition of the constitutional position of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is a very important matter, which must be one of the

subjects to be discussed at the talks when they take place.
Now I must turn to what is being called a tripartite conference. If we are to make the advances on a Council of Ireland to which I have referred, it is essential that there should now be urgent discussions between representatives of the Government of Ireland and those persons who will be members of the Northern Ireland Executive. This conference will be held as soon as possible, and will, I hope, reach a clear understanding. I also intend to invite the leaders of those parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly who have indicated that they are not prepared to participate in an Executive to discuss with me their views on a Council of Ireland, so that these will be known at the time of the conference. It will be necessary, thereafter, to hold a formal conference between Her Majesty's Government, the Government of the Republic and the Northern Ireland Executive, which will have been appointed by then.
My talks with the parties also covered other matters which are of interest to the people of Northern Ireland. So far as policing is concerned, Her Majesty's Government have made it clear that the Royal Ulster Constabulary will continue to provide the police service for Northern Ireland. The Government have also stated that their aim is to achieve the ending of politically motivated violence from whatever source, to ensure that there is effective policing throughout Northern Ireland so that the Army can be progressively withdrawn from its present rôle, and to bring about a situation in which public support for the police and identification with it are essential parts of effective policing. No single set of proposals is likely to achieve these aims overnight. Time will be necessary. The full co-operation of the Government of the Republic is essential in this task.
Another of these matters which we discussed was detention. In the summer of this year, Parliament passed the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, which, as the House will remember, was based on the recommendations of the committee under Lord Diplock, which also had as members Professor Sir Rupert Cross, Mr. George Woodcock and Sir Kenneth Younger. These provisions are subject to annual review. It is under the provisions of that Act that people


are detained in Northern Ireland by independent commissions. I have during the talks reaffirmed Her Majesty's Government's firm view, that they will bring detention for all sections of the community to an end as soon as the security situation permits, as part of their wish to bring about a lasting peace.
With the very real political progress of recent weeks and the desire of the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland for peace, we hope that the men of violence will be increasingly isolated and rejected and that the security situation will improve. The Emergency Provisions Act vests in the Secretary of State executive power to release detainees and I wish to see not only progress in the security situation but also, in parallel with it, a progressive reduction in the numbers detained. As an earnest of this, I hope to be able to bring into use my statutory powers of selective release. If the security situation permits, I intend to do so in time for a number to be released before Christmas. Those released may be required to give a suitable undertaking about their future conduct, but. I emphasise that executive decisions on releases must depend on the security situation. Continued progress will, therefore, clearly depend on further improvement in the security situation generally.
In the meantime, procedures for review provided by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 have already led to some releases. The reviews by the commissioners will continue. I should also stress that everything possible is being done to bring persons suspected of terrorist offences before the courts rather than have them detained under the Emergency Provisions Act. I can assure the House of the enormous amount of progress made in this respect.
I have also undertaken to consider compassionate cases on a wider basis than hitherto, and other preparatory measures are in hand, including the recruitment of more social workers to help with the administration of these arrangements and the introduction of various training schemes.
I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will feel that a start has been made in implementing the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, to which they gave such generous support. If, indeed, progress has been made, much of the credit must go

to the wholehearted encouragement which Her Majesty's Government have received from all parts of this House and Parliament.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who said in his book that all-party co-operation in this House was vital to any successful solution to the desperately difficult problems of Northern Ireland. In particular, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) for the understanding and the very proper and constructive criticism they have given to me on many occasions. However, we must be clear that this is not a time for self-congratulation in this House. We have set out upon a very difficult operation. There are those in this House and outside who are convinced and determined that we should fail. They are, clearly, entitled to pursue their aims by constitutional means. But let there be no illusions in this House or anywhere else, they are not entitled to blur that line between constitutional action and force.
We have made a good start, I believe. I applaud the statesmanship of those who, despite their differences of the past, are now turning to work together for the future good of the whole community. There are many people in Northern Ireland, in the rest of the United Kingdom and, indeed, throughout the world who will wish them success.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It seems a long time since we were in the rhythm of debates on the Green Paper, the White Paper and the legislation.
A summary of those debates, even in the context of the tragic statements of bombings and killings which seemed to punctuate the whole of the year—from what the Secretary of State said today and from what I was able to check before coming into the House I calculate that 905 people have been killed since the emergency began—is that a majority of this House supported the political approach, the elections by proportional representation, the power sharing and the acceptance of the Irish dimension along with the United Kingdom dimension.
The elections have been held, and that was a turning point; the power-sharing


discussions seem to have gone on and on; the Secretary of State has now announced agreement between the three parties, the official Unionists, the SDLP and the Alliance on power sharing. The parties concerned, given the very strong feeling in Northern Ireland which enmeshed the communities deserve the praise of this House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) deserves congratulation as do Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Napier.
Above all, to the Secretary of State who played a vital part in these negotiations, I offer on behalf of the Opposition our unreserved congratulations. The fact that he has reported last night's events to the House this afternoon is an indication of his feeling for the House, and I wish that other Ministers would do the same. It is something to have the Press listening to what is said in the House rather than Members of Parliament finding out what the Press has learnt before them.
The Secretary of State shows an understanding of the Irish situation. He showed a realistic flexibility in all the negotiations he undertook. I observe that he is most fortunate not to be the Secretary of State for Employment in a Westminster Government, trammelled by the rigid rules of phase 3 trade union negotiations. I repeat the congratulations from this side of the House, and in so doing take up a point that he made when he expressed words of praise for this House for its handling of this problem, words of praise which are all the more worth while in view of the knocking of politics which is heard sometimes. This was an example of how a major and difficult problem should be sensibly discussed. He has said that the breakthrough is only the beginning and that it must not be allowed to develop into a false door.
It is to the current situation and the future steps that I must now turn. First, I deal with the Executive. What will be the timing of the order—I am not asking for a precise date—under Section 2(1)(b), since there will have to be an amendment to the Act? Do I take it that the amendment will have to be made before the order is made permitting the Executive to begin work officially? In that respect

does it mean that the Executive, even though it has been formed, will not have to sit around waiting for the order and that at least to some degree, without being too formal, it can begin thinking about its work as a body? It would be silly, bearing in mind the power this House will have, if it has to sit around unable to even consider the problems.
There have been a number of statements from the talks, and the right hon. Gentleman referred today to the very real change in the agreement between the three parties with their different philosophies on social and economic affairs. I presume that we can await, and we would be right to await, what in effect will be the Queen's Speech to the Assembly in this respect. But what about the other Executive agreements on matters which are for this House? A statement was issued the other day by the Press office of the Northern Ireland Department. It contains three, if not four, things about which we should know more. In it the Secretary of State said.
In particular, the White Paper provided that a Northern Ireland Executive would act as an Advisory Committee to the Secretary of State on all reserved matters; and that there should be democratic participation in restoring to all parts of Northern Ireland the full benefits of a normal police service.
What does this mean? How will it be done?
The Secretary of State continued in the statement:
As the Prime Minister has already made clear, the RUC will continue to provide the police service for Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman repeated that today. The statement continued:
Much has already been done to reorganise it. More is needed to expand the RUC and its Reserves in order to provide that policing becomes effective throughout Northern Ireland … The Government will welcome any constructive suggestions to these ends, and a group under the Minister of State, Mr. van Straubenzee, is now at work.
What is the status of the group? Is it a departmental committee or a Civil Service committee under the chairmanship of a Minister? We ought to know more about these matters.
The statement went on:
The Government intends to reconstitute the Police Authority to introduce into it a number of elected representatives from the Assembly.


What is happening on that matter? What proportion of the various groups in the Assembly will be on the police authority? Will it only be those who are on the Executive or will it comprise a wider grouping of members?
The statement continued:
District Liaison Committees with elected representatives will be set up. …
What is happening about that?
The statement went on to say, in regard to the Council of Ireland concept:
The Government is in favour of such discussions"—
discussions at a tripartite conference—
including the concept of a common law enforcement area and the question of extradition processes.
—which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned today—
A study has been put in hand of these questions.
What does that mean? Is it a study by civil servants in Stormont Castle or a study carried out in co-operation with the Government of the South? This Press statement on law and order is very important. Law and order is very much under the control of this House, and we ought to know more about what is going on.

Mr. Kilfedder: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that all the papers which were put before those who took part in the conference with the Secretary of State should be placed in the Library so that all hon. Members may have the chance to study them before we debate the order?

Mr. Rees: I do not agree in that wide sense. The statement on law and order is a matter for the House, and we ought to know more about it. However, social and economic matters, for example, are questions for the Assembly, even though I and other hon. Members are extremely interested in them, and in my view would be appropriate for inclusion in the equivalent of a Queen's Speech.
Before turning to the question of the Irish dimension, which was the other major aspect in the right hon. Gentleman's statement, I wish to mention briefly internment. The Opposition have always made clear that society must act against the gunman, that this action must be taken through the process of law. The

right hon. Gentleman spoke about this today and made a number of points which we shall wish to study.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a political break-through. It may be a major step, but it also may be that it will be a long time before we get that final settlement in Northern Ireland which we all desire. However, it is extremely important that at this time we do not forget a matter which strikes me every time I visit Long Kesh. Over 1,000 people, about a hundred of them juveniles, are imprisoned there. Some have been sentenced under the due processes of law, and not for terrorism, but a large number are held there under the Detention of Terrorists Order.
Each time I visit Northern Ireland and see the bombing and killing I realise what the situation is about, but we must not forget that it is not a long-term solution to the problem of Northern Ireland to keep a large number of men locked up in this way in Long Kesh, outside the due process of law. It is easier said than done. I am not suggesting an easy solution, but in the present euphoria it is something we must not forget.
There is no Bill of Rights, but various parts of a Charter of Human Rights are set out in the White Paper. I hope that very soon we shall know what the Government will do about the agency to investigate discrimination in employment and patterns of employment. As we move along on the approach of the White Paper, with its broken-up Charter of Human Rights, it is important to know more about that. I believe that the Minister of State is heavily involved in the setting up of that agency, or, at least, was involved in the initial work with the trade unions and employers.
As regards the Irish dimension, we can start with paragraph 112 of the White Paper, with its three parts about effective consultation and the provision of a firm basis for community action. There is there a point which many people in Northern Ireland ignore, and which is often ignored in this House, when it speaks of discussion on
the acceptance of the present status of Northern Ireland, and of the possibility—which would have to be compatible with the principle of consent—of subsequent change in that status".


We can start with that and end with the elaboration in more detail that the Secretary of State gave today in what he said about the discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland.
What legislation shall we in the House have to be ready for if there is movement on the All-Ireland Council, the Irish dimension? The magazine Fortnight, which discusses the problems of Northern Ireland, recently suggested that Section 2 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was still operative. It talked about 40 members for this, 40 for the other and so on. I made inquiries in the appropriate place and was told that that section had been repealed in 1925. Yet a magazine whose articles are always worth reading, whether one agrees or disagrees, argued that a piece of legislation amended 48 years ago was still the law of the land. If such errors can be made, it is important to get the matter right.
Is legislation necessary in forming the Council of Ireland? Would it come from London, Dublin and Northern Ireland or from London and Dublin? I am sure that I am telling the Government Front Bench what they already know, but it is important to get it on the record for the rest of us who will consider the necessary legislation. I understand that the formation of such a council will not require legislation at Westminster, that, although international relations, including treaties, are excepted matters under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, Section 12 of that Act empowers the Northern Ireland Executive to consult on any matter within the authority of the Republic of Ireland and enter into agreements or arrangements with any authority of the Republic in respect of any transferred matter. Therefore, it is up to the Assembly.
However, if a Council of Ireland is to assume powers in respect of reserved or excepted matters, legislation at Westminster will be necessary, and if it is in respect of transferred matters, legislation by the Assembly will be necessary.
If in the months ahead an all-Ireland institution is agreed by all those concerned, it seems as though the setting up of the Council—not what it does, but the actual institution—does not require legislation in this House. I am surprised at that. I can see that it would affect

the Government in the South, and that they would require their legislation. Until I obtained the information, I had thought that we should be ready to have legislation of that kind, but I am advised not. I hope that the Government will put us right on the matter. It seems rather strange that, while we shall be consulted on the powers, we shall not have to say "Yea" or "Nay" or be consulted on the structure.
What is the purpose of the first conference? Is it to help consideration? I hope that this part of the agreement which deals with the Irish dimension will be published as a White Paper. It would be only a short one. In the past couple of years those of us who have been involved in discussions with people interested in the matter in both parts of the United Kingdom and in the South of Ireland have found that there is no starting point for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement, which we can consider carefully, but on the issues which will be discussed at the one or two conferences I wish that the agreement with the political parties were available in some form.
There are many possibilities resulting from the information I obtained about the legislation that is required. One thing that seems to be sure is that, if it is simply a matter of powers which are in the control of the Assembly, the North and the South can talk together, but if there are matters reserved to this House the situation is different. It is important to have this information, even if a White Paper is inappropriate.
One of the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman managed as well as he did in the past 18 months to get people talking—at Darlington, for example—was the Green Paper, an excellent document which contained everything that one needs when trying to put one's mind to what can be done next. The White Paper before the Act was a development of that Green Paper. I hope that there is a way to make readily available the ideas which will now be the subject of discussion in the newspapers and so on about the possibility of a Council of Ireland, or whatever it will be called.
Of course, the Council must have teeth. Of course, it must be intergovernmental. It is important to bring in all the political parties in the North and


the South, and not into the governmental side. We should perhaps consider means akin to the Council of Europe, where Members of this House and other assemblies meet. It would be extremely valuable for many elected representatives in the South and the North to meet their opposite numbers. They would be surprised at the differences of opinion. Sometimes it is put to me that some people in the South regard those differences of opinion as a figment of the imagination of people on this side of the water. It would be admirable if, for example, the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) could inflict—no, put—his views to some of those in the South who believe that parties over here, and not the hon. Gentleman, are a stumbling block to unification.

Mr. Kilfedder: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, I am sure he will agree with me that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should meet the unpledged Unionist members of the Assembly who were backed by 50 per cent. of the delegates attending the recent meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council, to have discussions on the matter.

Mr. Rees: I do not know about meeting them all. I would not inflict everything on the hon. Gentleman. He might consider meeting the leaders. It would be an excellent idea for the elected representatives in the North to meet the elected representatives of the South. I am not suggesting that they should meet so as to get something done. That might mean that nothing would ever be done.
The concerns of the Assembly must be security, which I have mentioned, and extradition, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Also to be considered is regional policy. To try to dampen down any euphoria there might be about economic policy, it might be important for all of us to have more information on the economic differences between North and South. It is so easy glibly to say that there should be more economic co-operation between the North and the South.
In "Towards a New Ireland" Mr. Garret Fitzgerald says:
In all the North obtains about seven per cent. of its imports from the Republic, to which it ships four per cent. of its exports.

I believe that Mr. Fitzgerald's book is now two years old, so those are probably 1968 or 1969 figures. He then says:
As for the Republic, four per cent. of its imports come from the North and the North takes about 12 per cent. of its exports.
Mr. Fitzgerald raises another matter which is worth our consideration when we talk about economic co-operation between the North and the South. In pages 75 and 76 he says:
It is clear in any event that the agricultural and industrial economies of the Republic and Northern Ireland despite their rather different structures are competitive rather than complementary.
He continues:
Even though they have developed rather differently than they might have done had Ireland not been divided about 50 years ago, it does not seem probable that the re-unification of the country would have any very significant economic effect as a result of opening up new possibilities of internal trade.
When we talk about economic co-operation between the North and the South we must consider production. On the little investigation which I have made it seems that the small shipbuilding industry in the South would be severely knocked if the vast yards in Belfast unleashed in only a small way their production on the South. That is a small point. As Mr. Fitzgerald says, there is competition between North and South. I want co-operation, not just for economic reasons but because of regional development.
The events of yesterday are a step forward but they are only a beginning. Let us not ignore the fears of those who are not involved in the talks. Perhaps that is better said by the Opposition than by the Government. I realise how little ice we cut with the Protestant working class of the North. That applies to Liberals or anyone else. It is my view that the unfolding of the package over some months will reassure the Protestant working class that it is not to be sold down that mythical river. It needs no pledges and no Act of Parliament to tell Labour hon. Members that a united Ireland is not in our gift either directly or by sleight of hand.
The facts of life are that the people of the North are their own people and it is the people of the South and not us who will have to deal with them. We are, on the other hand, firmly against complete integration. It is important that a majority


of the people in the North should recognise that. It is not an option that we have in the wings if all else fails. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, after his brief flirtation with the idea, said:
I have never sought, nor do I now seek, to advocate the integration of Northern Ireland into the United Kingdom. I do not believe that that would be a solution to the troubles which have troubled Northern Ireland these last five years and longer.
In the end the right hon. Gentleman recognised the force of the objections which were present in the Green Paper. The Government are against complete integration.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: I am following the hon. Gentleman with interest. Does he agree that Northern Ireland is grossly under-represented in this Chamber? Does he not agree that in future, so as to get things harmonised, the number of representatives from Northern Ireland should be increased according to the Kilbrandon Report?

Mr. Rees: I hope that the Province will have a successful Executive which will be different from other parts of the United Kingdom. I do not agree with extra representation, for exactly the same reason as I am against complete integration. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) is present. Whether the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) or I or anybody else likes it, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone represents by his election the views of certain people in the Province. That is one of the facts of life that have led us to the present problem.

Mr. Douglas: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) reconsider some of his remarks about the Protestant working class? If the Labour Party cannot speak meaningfully to either the Protestant or the Catholic working class of Northern Ireland or any other country, the ideals which I believe the Labour Party stands for and has stood for are not significant in the last quarter of the twentieth century.

Mr. Rees: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) is absolutely

right. The matter which he mentioned is a matter which I recognise. That is why I was saying that the Protestant working class believes that the British Labour Party would sell it down the river. I am saying that the Labour Party would not. That was the point behind my remarks. To the unofficial and unpledged Unionists I would say that power sharing is not an attempt to force a coalition Government against our parliamentary traditions but an attempt to repair the ravages of a split society.
I hope that the "loyalist" opposition in Northern Ireland will now increasingly play its part in the new Assembly. There is so much to do, for example, in the areas of housing, trade and health. Perhaps it is hopeless to appeal to those in Northern Ireland who live by violence and the rule of the gun, but to them I say that it is the view of the majority of the British people that they will not drive, if that is the way they put it, any British Government out of Northern Ireland by the gun. They are wasting their time. All that is happening is death and destruction involving decent people on both sides, whether they be Proestant or Catholic. On behalf of the Labour Party I say "Give up the killing and the bombing. Use the Act which has just gone through the House of Commons, which is an attempt to bring Protestants and Catholics together."
Last night there was a breakthrough and the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland are now in an Executive, with many problems in front of it, but in that there is hope. The Secretary of State's announcement is a significant step forward. It is the hope of the Labour Party that it will lead forward to further developments.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I welcome the statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made to the House. I congratulate Mr. Brian Faulkner and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) on coming to a conclusion and forming an Executive in Northern Ireland in spite of considerable obstacles.

Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have always thought that in any debate the speakers who are selected should represent not


necessarily opposite sides of the House but opposite sides of the matter which is being debated. I regret that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has not been called.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I have neither eyes to see nor ears to hear in this matter except as Mr. Speaker, whose servant I am here, directs me.

Mr. McMaster: I was saying that I welcome the statement which my right hon. Friend has made, and I offer congratulations to him and to all the members of the Unionist Party who have worked to achieve this settlement in Northern Ireland. I believe that the arrangements which have been elaborated by my right hon. Friend provide a workable basis for the establishment of the new Executive in Northern Ireland.
The Unionists have an overall majority. It appears that, although there are now to be 11 rather than 12 places on the Executive, the principle of collective responsibility will apply. As I understand that, majority decisions will be taken by the Executive and, therefore, the Unionists will be in a position to influence the Executive in a way which reflects the strength of the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, shown in the plebiscite and in the election of the Assembly earlier this year. In the election of the Assembly, the Unionist vote represented some 68 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. McMaster: No.
I should like an explanation of the powers of the wider Executive. If I counted correctly while this complex statement was being made, there will be some 16 members on the wider Executive. How will these additional members be involved in the decisions of the inner cabinet, as it were, of the Executive? What exactly are the functions of the additional members? How will they affect the balance in the Executive?
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Belfast, West is not in the House at the moment, because I would like him to comment on the intentions of the Social Democratic and Labour Party about the rent and rates strike. I believe that this is a serious obstacle to further progress

in Northern Ireland. It is disgraceful that it should have continued for so long. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has spoken against it, and I hope that it can soon be brought to an end.
I turn now to discussion of the security situation in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Leeds, South referred to control over the Royal Ulster Constabulary. This is an important point. With the present arrangements, control over the RUC appears to be left ultimately to this House, but I feel that in the end it will have to be controlled by the Executive in Northern Ireland. Only the members of the Executive will be able fully to understand the security situation in Northern Ireland, representing as they will do the wide spectrum of opinion, both Protestant and Catholic. Surely control of the RUC could be vested in the new Executive.
I ask my right hon. Friend also to consider whether the powers of the Ulster Defence Regiment could be widened. Recruiting for the RUC has been very disappointing since the Hunt Committee reforms. If security is to be restored in the unsettled state of affairs in Northern Ireland, the police and the reserve police need to be backed up by a militia in Northern Ireland, and I would see the UDR forming the basis of such a militia.
I speak particularly in view of the degree of preparedness of the IRA which was claimed, and so stated earlier this week in the Press. One is very apprehensive in Northern Ireland in view of the statements made by the IRA about the arming and training of members of the Provisional IRA—training with most modern weapons and even, it is claimed, in the use of aircraft. We saw how the Provisional IRA was able to "spring" several of its men from close confinement in Dublin by using a helicopter.
One must not underestimate the threat of the IRA. We have seen in recent months an increasing number of raids across the border into Northern Ireland. One RUC station near the border has been completely destroyed. It is only by using not only the police but the UDR in the additional rôle I envisage that proper control can be maintained over the border in conjunction with the security forces in the South of Ireland.
The police have suffered bitter casualties as a result of the IRA campaign.


They have had 41 police officers killed, and the Army and the UDR 237 killed since the troubles began in August 1969. This makes the total of security force deaths 278 in the past four years. On top of that, 627 civilians have been killed. In total, 905 people have been killed and some 10,000 or more seriously injured as a result of the incidents in Northern Ireland. There have, I believe, been more than 3,600 bomb incidents.
I regret the activities of extremists on the Protestant side in recent weeks and months, particularly the campaign of assassination. But one must remember that the 278 dead of the security forces have been claimed by the IRA as being the result of IRA activities. I firmly believe that, of the total casualties, between 90 and 95 per cent. were the result of the activities of the IRA. That is where the main threat lies, and I am very concerned about the prospect for the coming months. We know that the Ulster Volunteer Force has declared a truce, but the Provisional IRA has not.
I am most apprehensive and would like an assurance from the Government that the tightest and most stringent security measures will be taken in the coming months. I am apprehensive that the IRA will use its utmost force to try to overthrow the Executive and the new Assembly.
In turning briefly to the question of a Council of Ireland, I ask what representations have been made to the Government of the South of Ireland. I have here a copy of the Constitution of the South of Ireland. The very second article is repugnant, not only in Northern Ireland but, I hope, throughout the United Kingdom. It provides that:
The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and territorial seas.
I would hope that before any Council of Ireland is set up the Republican Constitution will be amended, that the South of Ireland will abandon its claim to represent the entire island of Ireland, and that it will recognise, not only de facto but also de jure, the existence of Northern Ireland and the right of its people to self-determination.
I welcome the setting up of a Council of Ireland, but its powers should be strictly defined. I would not like to see

such a body backed up by some civil service of its own, with powers it could extend at its own wish. If that is the Government's intention, I warn them that it is a formula for disaster.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the fears of many people in Northern Ireland, on both sides of the political fence. I speak now about the Protestant side. There is a great fear of being sold down the river. Unless there is some strict definition of the powers of the Council of Ireland, fuel could be added to the fire, fuel which, in the hands of evilly disposed men, could be used to extend the violence in Northern Ireland.
I conclude by once again congratulating my right hon. Friend and the leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland on their foresight in being able to establish this Executive. Each side has made sacrifices in order to get it off the ground.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I shall not detain the House for long because many hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies are rightly anxious to contribute to the debate. Like the previous speakers, I begin by congratulating the Secretary of State. What he has achieved is quite remarkable. In very large degree it is due to his own personal character and persistence. It is a very pleasant thing from time to time to be in the position of saying that about someone of another political party. As the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said, the degree of unanimity which has been demonstrated across party lines in the House has been one of the pleasing aspects of this long, terrible story with which we have had to wrestle.
As a Liberal, I am naturally particularly pleased to see ideas with which the Liberal Party has been associated being introduced; for example, the question of proportional representation, power sharing, the development of some protection of individual rights and the holding of security here in this House. I should like to refer briefly to Sheelagh Murnaghan, the former Liberal representative at Stormont. I think that the Secretary of State would acknowledge that in her way she has done a great deal


to promote the very ideas for which the Secretary of State has worked so hard.
I associate myself with what the Secretary of State about the Army and the security forces. They have behaved quite splendidly in tremendously hard and hazardous conditions.
It has already been said that the establishment of the Executive last night by the three parties could not have occurred without considerable concessions on all sides. Putting the matter very simply and bluntly, it must have required very considerable statesmanship and personal restraint for the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to agree to serve under Mr. Faulkner, considering all that has occurred in the past. That level of willingness to co-operate must be recognised.
It is a revolutionary concept of power sharing. It is a great pity that the revolution should begin in a way which was not envisaged. It was not envisaged that the Executive, in a power-sharing situation, should have to operate against an opposition, even if it was an unofficial opposition. The concept was that all elements in the Northern Ireland political situation would be embodied in the Executive, and that thereafter it would be a question of the Executive operating in a personal relationship, as it were, with each member of the Assembly rather than with coherent groups in this way.
I very much regret the attitude adopted by Vanguard and certain elements of the Ulster Unionist Party. In the end this will not be constructive. I have quoted the example of the hon. Member for Belfast, West, who is doing something that he would not, perhaps, have chosen to do. But the refusal to participate, the boycotting of the Assembly last Monday, for example, when it was intended to debate unemployment in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Kilfedder: The Assembly does not meet on Mondays. It meets only on Wednesdays. I cannot answer for all my colleagues, but I came over here to take part in a Division and to attend a meeting yesterday. In fact, I have tabled an amendment in the Northern Ireland Assembly and I intend to take part in the debate next week on unemployment. Mr. John Taylor had to be in London yesterday. My hon. Friend the Member for

Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is in America. It is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to say that there is an organised boycott. I cannot answer for many people, but there were reasons for the absence of a number of people.

Mr. Johnston: I apologise for mixing up the days. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there was no organised boycott, I am glad to hear it. But certainly the hon. Gentleman will agree that it has been said in the Press very distinctly that there was such a boycott. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there was not, that is a welcome statement.

Mr. Kilfedder: I regard the Assembly as important.

Mr. Johnston: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say so.
A new concept of this sort will take a long time to percolate down to the level at which ordinary people feel that this kind of experiment is working. It would be a great mistake to expect of it too much too quickly. It is a very revolutionary change in the way that we are doing things, certainly within the United Kingdom context and must be seen as such.
The Secretary of State was rightly cautious in what he said about the Council of Ireland. Nevertheless, what he did say was very hopeful. He did not refer to the Council of Ireland within, as it were, the European dimension, but that is an increasing factor with contact between the North and the South. I find with interest that this contact is often occurring in places such as Strasbourg. It does not do any harm to the inflow of ideas. In the end, the European dimension can only be of assistance.
Power sharing is one thing, but the solution to the deep scars in the Northern Ireland community will not be achieved unless there is, beyond that, a sharing of wealth and opportunity. I shall welcome the time when we can have debates on Northern Ireland without talking about politics or political solutions but talking about economics, jobs, housing and so on, to a greater extent than we have done in these last years. For me, as a Liberal, this must be one of the basic reasons for the deep persistence of division. I doubt whether the unemployment rate in Londonderry, for example, has dipped much below 12 per cent. at any time since


the war. At times it has climbed much higher. It is the same sort of pattern in the north-west of Northern Ireland. This must not be allowed to continue in the future.
Those are matters for tomorrow. Today we must welcome the realism and the strength which has made the establishment of this Executive possible. Again I congratulate the Secretary of State on his courage and persistence in creating the conditions whereby it was established.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: The spokesmen for the Labour Party and the Liberal Party have been generous in the praise which they have rightly accorded the Secretary of State. When it comes to a speech from my side of the House I must say "Me, too, only more so."
I regard it as an astonishing feat, and I know that hon. Members will agree with me. While I fully respect the reserve and caution with which my right hon. Friend concluded his speech, he is entitled to a moment of triumph. During recent months there were moments when we would have put long odds against the settlement. We do not like to think how long those odds were at times. However sceptical anybody wishes to be, it has been a triumph against the odds.
One owes a tribute also to those principals taking part in the negotiations. Anybody who knows anything about the Northern Ireland scene may best appreciate the sort of pressures which must have been on those principally concerned—indeed, the risks which were involved for them. One of the principals is a Member of this House, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I should certainly like to pay my tribute to him for his part. I know well the circumstances of the hon. Member's life in Northern Ireland. I sometimes ask myself whether in his place I would have had the courage to play the rôle that he has been prepared to play in recent weeks. When I ask myself that I do not get a clear or convincing answer.
This is a dimension with which we are mercifully unfamiliar here. We may take our time in negotiations, but at least we can do so in reasonable safety. We ought to acknowledge that. Those who sit in judgment of people who appear

to drag their feet on negotiations like this should acknowledge that the circumstances in which these events occur in Northern Ireland are very different from what we know here. Nor will those risks be diminished by the settlement. Indeed, it may be otherwise.
The Secretary of State concluded by saying that it was an unhappy fact that there were substantial minorities on both sides who did not want a settlement and who have done all they could to prevent it—by perfectly constitutional means—and who will, still by constitutional means, do all in their power to destroy the settlement which has been achieved.
It would be agreeable to suppose that this development might lead to a cessation of violence. I do not take that for granted. Temporarily, it could have quite the opposite effect. In a sense, those who may have held their hand, hoping against hope that no settlement would be reached, did so in order to see what might happen, and they may now be inclined to enter their own kind of claim. Moreover, the pressures to which both sides have been heavily subjected during the negotiations are likely to increase rather than diminish as the Executive moves into action with the power to act and, we hope, increasingly to take over the reins from the Secretary of State.
One event in the past week—the meeting of the Unionist Council—has illustrated the pressures on one of the participants. It has illustrated also that at least half the party that he represents regards the solution being pursued as unconvincing. The next make-or-break point may well come over the tripartite talks and the Council of All Ireland. I sense that that will be a most difficult region. I think the talks will occur soon. I hope they will be taken at a reasonable pace. Speed may be all-important, but I understand that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his celebrated visit to Dublin one of the points he was at pains to persuade the Prime Minister of the Republic to accept was that the Council of Northern Ireland must await the formation of the Executive in Belfast and that to hasten matters unduly could lead ultimately to failure and disaster. Having got this far, I hope that we shall not now be persuaded to


go faster with the All-Ireland Council than the mood of the North is prepared to accept. If we do, this will be the first point at which the arrangement comes under pressure and risk.
Our best chance of success in avoiding a breakdown will depend on the awareness by the forces involved—I mean the rank and file of the parties engaged—of what the alternatives are to this course of action. The will to make a difficult settlement work can be fatally eroded if it is generally or too widely supposed that we have in waiting some preferable, workable alternative, a safety net, another solution, if this proposal fails.
There are many in the Unionist Party—I judge nearly half the party, if we are to take this week's vote seriously—who regard power sharing as second best and seriously prefer some alternative course. I know that that view is shared by some of my hon. Friends, and I respect their view. They genuinely believe that a better solution, and one which, if we were put to it, we should have to accept, is integration. I can only express a personal view, but I should like to do it now since it can affect thinking about the future. It is that those who believe that are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Integration is simply not a viable alternative. The first reason is that it would not be accepted by the House of Commons, either in its present shape or in any conceivable shape that it could get itself into. That is a formidable obstacle to such a move. It would certainly end the bipartisan arrangements that we enjoy with hon. Members opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "That would be no loss."] An hon. Friend of mine says that that would be no loss, but I disagree. But it would also end the era of co-operation with the Irish Republic and the security problems, of which the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) spoke, would then be greatly exacerbated. We should have given notice to the Republic and to its many friends all over the world that, far from seeking closer association between North and South, the two would draw further apart. The campaign to get the British Army out of Northern Ireland would then be translated into a campaign here, probably, to stop integration and to

sever relations with the North. Finally, we should be moving in the reverse direction to that in which, I surmise—it is a difficult surmise to make—the Kilbrandon Commission has suggested we should be moving with regard to devolution.
For all these reasons, it is my positive view that those who talk of integration if things now go wrong are talking of a chimera. It simply would not happen. Yet there are many now campaigning against power sharing who believe that that is the likely alternative.
Of course, conversely, there are those who think that if there were now a breakdown we should simply hasten the unity of Ireland. In the light of the result of the border poll, which some of us attended, I would say that that is totally impossible also. If we tried to force that road too quickly, few of us with experience of the North would doubt that it would lead to civil war.
Then there are those who think that the alternative might be an independent Ulster. There are one or two hon. Members here who nurse that belief. The blunt fact is that by no conceivable means can Ulster become either economically or militarily independent. I would be the first to pay tribute to the way in which Ulster has sustained its industrial effort and productivity through four appalling years—it has been magnificent—but no one can be under any illusions about the extent to which we have underwritten this effort and the amount of money which has gone, and which I hope will continue to go, into the North, nor the degree to which we shall have to continue to sustain the security services with our manpower for a considerable time. So that cat will not jump.
So, after all these alternatives, what we are left with in the event of a breakdown is nothing better than a continuation of direct rule in some form. That is what we should be forced to if this arrangement broke down even at this stage. Such a continuation would not be under the benign auspices of my right hon. Friend—at least, for his sake, I hope that it would not. I know that there are some in Northern Ireland who, if they have not begun to see the attractions of direct rule, have at least found that the character and personality of my right hon. Friend have made it much


less obnoxious than it might have been if conducted by someone else. I doubt whether he will be there to preside over its continuation.
If that is faced realistically, I cannot believe that it is the wish of the majority in Northern Ireland to lose this first and historic opportunity, however fragile, to get a working representative Government—because this is what it is all about. This is the first chance—we can go right back before 1922—of a representative Government for the North. Either they build on the foundations so patiently and painfully laid by my right hon. Friend or they face a future too bleak to contemplate.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Frank McManus: There is a feeling abroad among the general public that Secretaries of State. Front Benchers and leading back benchers are staid and sober statesmen who are not easily swayed by emotion. These people would have been surprised to witness the extent of the euphoria which has obtained here today and has been carefully orchestrated so far in the debate—perhaps deliberately so.
It is, therefore, perhaps churlish of me to strike a discordant note, but I must say "Stop a minute and save your breath before the cheering breaks out; you will need it to cheer the next set of proposals which will inevitably come before the House when the present ones, as I believe, break down."
There has been a breakthrough, I suppose. The Secretary of State's statement was greeted as such. It is a propaganda breakthrough which has been carefully worked at and orchestrated up to this point. For the past several weeks the people, especially in Northern Ireland, have been fed a daily diet of talks, crunch issues, cliff-hangers, projections and numbers games now, finally, by some sort of wizardry, the thing is all fitted together and we have a breakthrough.
To garble the words of a former well-known Member of this House, never in recent history has so much been said by so many about so little. The whole thing has been organised, it appears, as a fanfare for the departure of the Secretary of State to another appointment. If he gets

the one we think he is in line for, I hope that the miners will be much tougher negotiators than the people who met him in Stormont Castle.
I want to deal with these proposals from a minority point of view. If the principal party representing the minority point of view had achieved anything in these negotiations, I am ready to believe that it would have carried with it most of those on the minority side. But it achieved nothing substantial. In fact, it surrendered all along the line for what, again using a quotation, one might call a mess of pottage.
Let us consider what it gave and what it got. One could set up a table. It accepted the Constitution Act, thereby defining for itself a Unionist position because the Constitution Act lays down that there will be no change for at least 10 years. Therefore, for 10 years at least the SDLP will be Unionist. After 10 years it may become something else but only time will tell.
The SDLP members have accepted the RUC and have supported that as demanded by Mr. Faulkner. The House should be aware by now that there is something wrong with the RUC. It has been an accepted fact in Northern Ireland for years that the RUC is unacceptable in its present form as a police force. Indeed, the SDLP campaigned in the election on that issue and won votes on it.
The SDLP withdrew support from the rate and rent strike. It withdrew—and this was the most shameful act of all—all meaningful opposition to internment and detention without trial. In return for that the SDLP—and this received massive publicity over many weeks—received a share of the less important Executive jobs. One of those jobs involves a debt collection agency for those on rent and rate strike. I refer to the Minister of Health and Social Security, who, in effect, will be a debt collector in relation to the people who voted him into office. That will be an interesting exercise.
I ask the Minister when he replies to tell the House about the changes which have taken place in the administration of the Civil Service over the last few months. Will he tell the House whether a new section is being set up to deal with management and personnel and to group most appointments within the Finance


Department so that, in effect, many—and certainly most of the major—appointments from now on will be made from that central body in the Ministry of Finance? Even on the portfolios given to the SDLP it appears to me—and I hope I shall be contradicted by the Minister in his reply—that the vital job of appointing senior civil servants will no longer be within its power. Many promises have been given about releases.

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman is on an interesting and valid point. Has he any comment to make about the control of finance itself? As we know, in this House each Department must look to the Treasury—in other words, to the Ministry of Finance—for its money. No Department can put through a scheme without Treasury approval. Will he comment on that aspect of the matter?

Mr. McManus: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to my attention. I thought I said that the Ministry of Finance is the vital Ministry. It was part of the bargain that that would have to stay in Unionist hands—in other words, the system of appointing people still remains in the same hands. Therefore, the vicious circle of discrimination perpetuating itself cannot be broken for at least 20 or 25 years.
To return to the promises, I was saying that promises have been received about releases of internees hedged about in the same language as used on the day when internment was introduced have been told, "If and when security allows, people will be released"—but not until then. That was the position over two-and-a-half years ago, and it is still the position today.
The SDLP was also given promises about Army behaviour. It was given promises about a Council of Ireland. I waited with interest to hear what the Secretary of State had to say about that matter. He confirmed my worst fears. That idea from its inception has not been a matter of organic growth, because all decisions had to be unanimous. It is a crazy situation. If the Unionists or anyone else do not like what is going on, they will merely have to say "We do not agree with you" and out goes the Council of Ireland. The Council as at present conceived appears to be totally meaningless. I say with many of my

colleagues: what powers and what sharing, indeed!
The package, wrapped up in glowing promises might find favour with certain people in the Catholic middle-class minority. These are the people who have never felt the lash of a biased judiciary, incessant harassment, internment and brutality in the last four years. Nor in the last 50 years have they had to endure the scourge of economic deprivation and systematic discrimination. This section of the Catholic community, who have been foremost among those who have propelled the SDLP towards acceptance of this Bill, is now examining the package with interest to see where lies the prospect of enhancement and profit.
At the same time as Milton would have said
The hungry sheep look up and are not fed".
it must be said that in the proposals there is not even a crumb of comfort for the downtrodden working class—certainly on the minority side. I can speak only for working-class people on the minority side, but I think it can also be said that there are not many crumbs of comfort for the working-class on any side in the North of Ireland.
The SDLP from this moment on cannot, and will not, escape the logic of the situation which it now faces. Its members have become part of a Unionist administration defined by Act of Parliament. They have officially joined a military and political machine which was specifically designed to crush the aspirations of the people who voted them into their present positions. For how long, we ask, will people in the minority excuse boots on their neck because some of them happen to belong to the Catholics? I believe that they will not do so for very long.
The proposals will probably function, but most assuredly I believe they will not work in the sense of making a contribution to peace and stability in the North of Ireland. I find it hard ever to agree with Mr. Craig, who spends most of his time hate-mongering in a sectarian fashion, but he may be right when he described these proposals as a recipe for further violence. I wish it were not so, but I fear that he is possibly right. The proposals are so full of basic contradictions that they bear within themselves the seeds of their own destruction.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about one matter which I, too, wish to take up. Will the Minister in his reply make some definitive statement whether the Executive will operate on a basis of collective responsibility? For example, if the Minister of Commerce—an SDLP man—introduces a measure that is repugnant to Loyalists, as was the resolution to abolish the Mace and the Speaker's Chair, will the Loyalists vote en bloc as they did to restore the Mace and the Speaker's Chair and the old-established practices of Stormont? If they then defeat a measure introduced by a member of the SDLP, will that be taken as a vote of no confidence in the Executive and will the Executive resign? If it resigns, by what device is the Executive to be put together again, and on what basis can the SDLP or the official Unionists go to the country to seek an election back to the Executive?
This is a central point in the whole affair. There are a whole range of subjects which may be contentious. If a proposals is put forward by one side or the other and, following a vote of no confidence, the whole thing collapses, it seems to me that under the Act there is no method whereby it can be put back together again. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some guidance on that.
Finally, I remind hon. Members that the Constitution Act lays down that there must be widespread support in the community at large for the power-sharing Executive. It is clear that there is not widespread support for it. On the Unionist side, Mr. Faulkner got through on the narrowest of possible majorities, 12. I know that the Conservative Prime Minister got the United Kingdom into the Common Market on an equally slender majority, but we hope that we are more democratic in Northern Ireland. No one will suggest that a majority of 12 can be interpreted as widespread support for any proposition.
On the minority side, it is true that the SDLP got 19 of its members elected the Assembly and that no other minority representative was elected. On the face of it, it looks as if the SLDP speaks with one voice for the entire minority. But that is far from the

case. The SDLP got a mandate on the strength of certain election promises, all of which have now gone out of the window. It is clear from the result today in a local government by-election, where a Republic Club candidate beat an SDLP candidate in a crunch election in Derry, that the tide is beginning to flow fiercely against the SDLP for the action that the party is now taking.

Mr. Stanley Orme: My hon. Friend should be accurate when he refers to this as an election defeat. Was not the seat already held by a Republican Club member? It was not a defeat for the SDLP.

Mrs. Bernadette McAliskey: Yes, it was.

Mr. McManus: The defence of the SDLP by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is extremely touching, but it is not accurate. The SDLP forced out the sitting member on a technicality, alleging that he did not qualify for his seat. The chief electoral officer recommended that he be allowed to retain his seat, but the SDLP saw an opening whereby it could snaffle all the seats, and it forced a by-election. However, the people of South Derry have given the SDLP their answer. I take that as a pointer that the tide is now flowing swiftly in the opposite direction.
I put it to the Secretary of State: there is a debate here, so why not put it to the test? The British system depends very much on elections. Apparently the Secretary of State can ordain an election at the stroke of a pen. I ask him to take up his pen and ordain another General Election in the North of Ireland on this issue to ask the people what they think about it. I am willing to bet that certainly those on the minority side would reject it. The minority population are not interested in sharing a modicum of power ordained by a British Minister. They are interested only in real power sharing with Irishmen in the conduct of their own affairs.

5.53 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State very modestly denied himself any self-congratulation on what has just occurred. However, I agree that it would be churlish


to deny that my right hon. Friend has shown great diplomatic skill and has had considerable success in timing the production of this achievement on the eve of today's debate. It is a remarkable feat. I am certain that my right hon. Friend will move on to the higher spheres that he is expected to attain with all our good wishes and our hope that he will use his considerable talents in whatever new appointment comes his way.
In the near future, following a fair gap since last July, it is clear that we have quite a number of debates to come. We shall have to debate the Council of Ireland proposition. We shall have to debate the new legislation concerned with the setting up of the administration. We shall have the Order in Council itself, which will give us the opportunity to express our views upon the package when the package is seen as a whole.
As my right hon. Friend and others know, I have been opposed throughout to the Constitution Act. I am opposed to the philosophy underlying Section 2 of that Act. Therefore, I cannot be expected to welcome what has occurred. I intend to reserve my main comments for when we see the package as a whole and we come to the substantive debates. At this stage, however, it is as well for this House of Commons to understand exactly what is taking place. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) put his finger upon the real issues involved.
What we have done by the operation of this section and what the various negotiations have resulted in is the creation of a new political party by statute. It is significant that among the new appointments which are to be made there are to be a Chief Whip and other Whips. That is characteristic of a political party. Let us not be afraid to face the issue. If these proposals go forward, if the further hurdles which exist are overcome and if my right hon. Friend is able to bring forward his Order in Council saying that he considers that Section 2 has been met and the Executive is actually formed, a new political party has been formed in Ulster, the Unionist, Social Democratic and Labour Alliance.

Mr. Maginnis: Taking my hon. and gallant Friend's argument a little further,

would it not be nonsensical to have further elections in Northern Ireland in the future?

Captain Orr: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. I shall be coming to elections in a moment.
Let us be clear that we are creating a new political party. After the new political party has been elected we shall try to say that we will not have an election to test whether that new party has the consent of the people. As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone pointed out, it is plain that it will not have the support of at least a substantial portion of the minority community. That has always been understood. But what is more important is that it will not have the support of the majority of the majority community. That is plain from the figures of the electorate.
Section 2 lays down specifically that the Secretary of State has to consider not only the position of the various political parties and their strengths in the Assembly but the electorates upon which they are based. There is no doubt that if one applies that criterion the majority of the majority community are opposed to the formation of this new political party.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a very interesting and logical assessment of this new Executive. For my benefit, will he take the matter a stage further and explain what he sees to be the duties of the new Chief Whip in the set-up?

Captain Orr: The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) asks me the question which I imagine will bewilder almost everyone. Presumably the new Executive will rest upon the votes of the people who, in a sense, join the new political party. They will consist of those Unionists who go with Mr. Faulkner together with those members of the SDLP who go with Mr. Fitt and one or two others. That will become the alliance. That will become the new political party. It is that group which the new Chief Whip and his deputy will supervise. If that is not the position, it is difficult to understand what will be the function of the new Chief Whip, and it will be very interesting to know what it is proposed to


pay him. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North has asked a very sensible question.
Let us be plain. It is necessary to understand clearly what is happening. We are setting up a new political party by statute which does not command majority support among the electorate. I will not comment any further than to say that in my view that is not a recipe for peace, order and stability.
I welcome and emphasise what has been said by hon. Members on both sides about deeply deploring any suggestion that what is being done should be resisted by violence. It should not. I condemn in advance anyone who might seek to do so. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that attempts will be made to bring about a violent reaction to what is taking place.
While these negotiations have been going on, and since Third Reading of the Constitution Act, there has been an air in the Press and everywhere else that things are getting better in Ulster. I have the figures of what has happened since we last discussed Northern Ireland in this House and I will put them on record.
There has been a total of 65 dead: one member of the RUC, two members of the RUC Reserves, nine soldiers, four members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and 49 civilians. There have been 379 explosions in which 253 people have been injured. So far this month there have been 97 explosions in which six people have died and the overall number of deaths is 20.
That is the background against which we are considering these proposals. It was thought, perhaps, on the passing of the Constitution Act, that things might get better. They have not got better.
I fear that there will be a recrudescence of violence on both sides of the political fence. I profoundly hope that I am wrong. I should be delighted to be proved wrong. But I sincerely believe that this is what we are about to face.
I cannot see that proceeding with something that is not, in a sense, government by consent will mitigate the situation. I have the gravest doubts about what is being done.

Mr. McMaster: Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that of the 900 killed 614 have been killed in the last 20 months while we have had direct rule for Northern Ireland; that is, since March 1972, when Stormont was suspended? Clearly, direct rule does not reduce the numbers killed; it only increases them. The numbers killed were much smaller when there was some parliamentary body working in Northern Ireland.

Captain Orr: I completely fail to understand the relevance of my hon. Friend's interruption. I was talking about the background to the figures and what has happened since we passed the Constitution Act in this House. My hon. Friend may be right about what has happended since direct rule. I pray God that we never go back to direct rule. I should not wish to see that again.
There are alternatives. People have said to me "This is the only scheme that can work. The enforcing of a new political party not commanding majority support upon the community is the only solution. There is no alternative." It is a pathetic argument.
There must be alternatives. One simple alternative that commends itself to me—I realise it does not meet the wishes of other hon. Members—is to accept for Northern Ireland what Kilbrandon put forward and recommended as the right solution for Scotland. Kilbrandon recommended that we should have 17 Members in this House. I think we should have more. But that at least would be a contribution. We could then operate the Constitution Act if we wished. It requires very little modification to retain the Assembly provided that the people of Northern Ireland are properly represented, but at present it is neither one thing nor the other.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that any alternative for Northern Ireland must be acceptable to the people not only of Northern Ireland but of Great Britain? Does he agree that if this proposal breaks down and a further proposition has to be put forward, the British as well as the Northern Irish people must be consulted?

Captain Orr: We have had this argument many times, as the hon. Gentleman


well knows. I should accept the decisions of this House provided that every part of the kingdom is fairly represented here. I think that the decision of the people of Northern Ireland ought to be accepted. We are now proposing to set up an Executive Government based on a new political party, an enforced coalition, which does not have the wholehearted consent of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Or of Britain.

Captain Orr: The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), in a very searching speech, put forward several points, some of which I had intended to raise. However, the hon. Gentleman omitted to ask about the cost of adding to the Executive the proposed new positions? What will be the precise relationship between these new Ministers, as it were, and the rest of the Executive? Will it be the kind of relationship that exists between the Cabinet and Ministers who are not in the Cabinet? Are they to be the same common ministerial responsibility? I think we are entitled to know what the position is likely to be.
There is almost bound to be a recrudescence or acceleration of violence. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will deal with this matter in more detail. Are the Government making any special preparations in advance? What is their thinking on this matter?
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone spoke of the number of people in detention. I am told that at the moment there are about 2,343 people in prisons of various kinds in Ulster. Some are awaiting trial. It is a huge number of people in a very small community. I know that my right hon. Friend and others are concerned about the position, but it looks, if the situation deteriorates, as though we shall have a serious problem. The Minister should tell us what he has in mind for the prisoners and the state of the prison service.
I am sorry to strike what may appear to be a note of gloom. I agree with the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone that euphoria in politics can be dangerous at times. It can mislead people into thinking that something is getting better. It can be a good thing if things really are getting better and some proposition

is sensibly founded. But this proposition is not firmly founded in popular support. For that reason, euphoria about it carries a deadly danger.

6.12 p.m.

Mrs. Bernadette McAliskey: Judging by the tone of the debate and its development, it would appear that the statesmanlike Members of the House, the "moderates", the "responsibles", the "respectables", have as usual, gone before, and, if I may include myself so as not to be called to order, the rabble have followed after.
I want to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) in adding my note but not of gloom or despondency. I do not feel that the Executive will work but I am not gloomy about it because I do not feel that it should work. I do not feel that it should be allowed to work, and I do not feel it should even be allowed to attempt to work.
This is because it has been set up in such haste, because it has been set up in such a manner of compromise. The only positive reason that seems to emerge for its setting up is that it enables the Secretary of State to depart with the flags waving and the trumpets blaring. At any time during his period of office, if he guarantees to go, I will blow the trumpets and wave the flags. I do not see any need to set up this elaborate farce simply to allow him to move with honour from a very difficult position to what looks like being an even more difficult position.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—whom I was once pleased to call an hon. Friend of mine—is not present. The basis of my criticism is not directed essentially against the British Government. I do not expect the British imperialist Government to behave like anything other than the British imperialist Government. But I certainly have a right to expect, as do the people who voted for the SDLP in the last election, to expect them to behave in the manner in which they pledged themselves to behave before the election.
We were told, while these crunch issues were incessantly coming up in the pages of the local newspapers, that there were three main, vital, principal issues


at stake for the SDLP. I remember when there were many more. They were whittled down, everything given away, until three last vital issues remained. They were internment, the police and the Council of Ireland. The simple reason why those three issues existed as a bone of contention was that they were the last remaining links between the SDLP and its support in the Catholic working class. The SDLP from the outset claimed it had neither social nor economic disagreement with the Unionist Party. I have never in political history heard of a Social Democratic Party that had no social or economic differences with the Tory Party. That leaves both parties, in the wider political spectrum, in exactly the same position.
If the Executive works, consider the prospect of just one man, Mr. Paddy Devlin, a member of the SDLP, who is likely to become Minister of Health and Social Services. Will that one and the same Paddy Devlin who stood with me on the streets of Northern Ireland and exorted people not to pay their rent, rates, electricity bills or television licences—and I admit responsibility for it because I still do it—turn around to these people for whom he is responsible and out of their unemployment benefit, without their consent, out of their earnings-related supplement, without their consent, and out of their exceptional needs grant, their family allowances, their maternity benefits and allowance, without their consent take the arrears owed to the State by working-class families? Does the Minister believe that Paddy Devlin will retain one ounce of credibility in his own community when he plays debt collector to the British Government?
I come to the three main issues. Again I remember the hon. Member for Belfast, West and his cohorts of brothers in exile standing on the platform with me and other Members of Parliament and those who are now members of the Assembly. We pledged that there would be no move towards a final solution of the problem of Northern Ireland until the question of internment was solved. Now we have an Executive-designate. Now we have the hon. Member for Belfast, West—the flip-side of Mr. Faulkner—standing before us, and we have nothing on internment

but a vague promise that if things get better the men will get out.
I ask the House to consider what the reaction will be in the prisons, where there are 2,000 men and women, and in the internment camps, particularly among the Catholic community, when they discover on their televisions tonight that the SDLP has agreed to set in motion the final solution in Northern Ireland and that there has not been one step taken on their behalf. Small wonder if they wreck the prisons and internment camps when they hear that.
What of the Council of Ireland? I remember Mr. John Hume, on his many personality appearances on television, telling us not only that it was to be a united Ireland or nothing, but, much more recently and more soberly, that we were to have a Council of Ireland with teeth. It is a weird Council of Ireland which not only has no teeth but has neither flesh nor bones. It requires only one member of the Unionist Party to register his disagreement over an issue to defeat this, and undoubtedly the Unionist Party will do this because it is not as stupid as the SDLP, I have discovered. Therefore, the Council of Ireland means nothing.
The SDLP has got nothing on internment, nothing on the Council of Ireland and nothing on the police, except that one or two of its members will be able to play chief dog and order a few policemen around their area. That brings us back to the question of where the SDLP always stood in the struggle against British imperialism. If we trace the party and its personalities back to the beginning, I am reminded of one quotation that will be familiar to people who will not consider it to be a mark of statesmanship to turn Quisling. There will be those who remember the quotation:
Far better the grave and the prison alone by one patriot name
Than the glory of men who have risen on Liberty's ruin to fame.
Let the SDLP have its Executive, its positions, its Ministry of Health and Social Services. It has made one significant thing clear. As and from now it is part of British imperialism's plan for Ireland. As and from now it is part of the British establishment. As and from now it is the enemy of the Irish people.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The House has listened to an attack on the SDLP from the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey). It was a bitter, uncompromising attack which I think will bring home to Members in this House the sort of problems and pressures which have been faced by all the parties taking part in the discussions. I do not intend to enter into controversy with the hon. Lady except to say that it is easy for her to make a bitter, forget-nothing sort of speech but that there are many of us who recognise that we must compromise and try to create new political institutions for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland, not for some long forgotten Irish Republican dogma of the hon. Lady—

Mrs. McAliskey: I think it was quite clearly pointed out, both in what I said and in what previous speakers said, that the present Executive holds nothing for the ordinary people in Northern Ireland. It is self-admitted to be exactly the same, socially and economically, as what we had before. Politically it is Humpty Dumpty and it would be better if he had never got on the wall.

Mr. Mills: The hon. Lady has made her point and the House will note the pressures, from the two extremes on either side, upon the parties in the middle who are trying to create these new institutions.
I want to move to other matters and say that, for many of us who have lived through the last four or five years, this is a very important occasion. One recognises it as a very major step forward though, using the words of the Duke of Wellington, it seems at stages to have been a "damned close run thing".
Others have paid their tributes to the Secretary of State today. I merely wish to add mine by emphasising one quality which was of vital importance to Northern Ireland, and that is his patience in listening and in discussing. In addition to that, there is his capacity for sheer hard work. I would go further and say that I do not believe there is any other member of the Cabinet who could have brought us so far in reaching this agreement, as did my right hon. Friend.
I should also like to put on record the major achievement of the three political

parties which took part in the negotiations because, unlike the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster, they were prepared to put Northern Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland before purely political considerations. They showed courage and determination to compromise in trying to create a new mould, and I agreed with a certain amount of what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said in that respect.
The House will know that I have felt that the White Paper approach is the correct one. I freely admit that it cannot guarantee success, but I feel that it offers the best chance of some form of stability and the best chance of creating new political institutions in Northern Ireland. But I think the House will accept it from me more readily than from others if I say that we should not be carried away by euphoria. I cannot emphasise that too strongly, because there are very many hurdles and problems still to be overcome. This is a big step forward, but it is not the end of the journey.

Mr. McManus: Before the hon. Gentleman passes from that point, may I say that this House well knows that as a member of the Alliance Party he has all along been the principal supporter of the White Paper. For that reason I would ask him whether he thinks that his party has been very scantily rewarded for that loyal service, because his party is to be allocated the job of being in charge of legal reform. The Secretary of State made it quite clear that that job would not interfere in any way with the functions of the Attorney-General, so it appears to be a totally new and ill-defined job. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can tell me what he thinks will be the job with which his party has been rewarded.

Mr. Mills: I am deeply touched by, and appreciative of, the concern of the hon. Gentleman. What has been put together is a package of compromises, and I do not think it serves any useful purpose to start unwrapping each layer and examining every little piece. I acknowledge that this is a set of compromise proposals.
What I was saying before I was diverted by the hon. Gentleman was that


there are still some very considerable hurdles to come. The biggest and most difficult of them, though it will not, I believe, be impossible, is in relation to the Council of Ireland and the tripartite talks. I was very glad that my right hon. Friend emphasised today that the Council of Ireland could operate only on the basis of the consent of the majority and minority in Northern Ireland. It is easy to build paper institutions but, as the Secretary of State stressed, they can operate only on the basis of consent and, in this case, unanimity. A pattern cannot be imposed.
My right hon. Friend stressed that the bodies to which he referred would have their own secretariat. One hopes that they will have a certain dynamic behind them and will not be of the purely Civil Service type, and that they will also include people from the universities, trade unions and industry and people with broad experience of public life. As I understand it, there are to be preliminary tripartite talks before the Executive is endorsed by this House, and I should like to know whether each of the three parties will go to those talks as individual parties rather than as a loose form of Executive. Also, what will be the procedure for decision making at these talks? I assume that there will have to be a basis of unanimity, but it is important to get this point clear.
It is important to stress that there are bound to be very considerable strains on the system during the first three, six or 12 months until the institutions start to operate effectively, and very considerable powers of statesmanship will be required of the parties concerned. Furthermore, they will have breathing down their necks the two extremes, one of which we have already heard today from the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster and the other we shall no doubt bear later in this debate. In addition the parties may well be operating against a pattern of violence inspired for political reasons, not by the political parties but by other elements, in order to try to destroy the Executive.
I assume that my right hon. Friend will very soon be moving to another

post, but I beg the Prime Minister to recognise, as I am sure he will, that the job is not yet over. There is still a great deal of work to be done and it will be necessary to have a figure of major political significance in the post of Secretary of State. Hon. Members have referred to Section 8 of the Act, which deals with the requirement of "widespread consent" for the Executive. This is something of which one can only make one's own evaluation, but it is my belief that a very broad cross-section of the people of Northern Ireland want to give these institutions a chance. It is interesting to note that three parties comprising a total of 48 out of the 78 seats are endorsing these proposals. That is at least a base upon which to start.
There is, however, one problem I must pinpoint which is of great importance. The Loyalist coalition represents some 27 out of the 78 seats. Its support rests on the votes of many ordinary, decent Protestants throughout the community. I shall not comment on some of the leaders of those political parties because that would be irrelevant. These ordinary, decent Protestants have fears and anxieties. One of the lessons of Northern Ireland in the last 50 years is that we must not produce a system in which one section of the community is alienated, as was much of the Catholic community, because that would only create enormous problems.
I do not want those who are represented by the Loyalist coalition to be totally alienated from the system, because that would create a tremendous problem for the future. When the Executive comes into being, therefore, it must pay particular attention to this and to try to bind up the wounds over the next few years. I was pleased to hear what the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said, that this was not a sell-out to a united Ireland, and that is my belief. It cannot be said too often. As the hon. Member said, a united Ireland is not this House's gift.
We have gone part of the way politically but there are still many problems. Although I have had my differences with Mr. Faulkner, I wish him well in his post as Chief Executive. I wish the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) well in his post as Deputy Chief Executive


and I will give all the support and backing that I can to the new Executive when it is formed.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I intervene with reluctance and hesitancy in a debate of this nature on such grave matters, particularly since I represent an English constituency and I have no Irish ancestry. I have put forward in Irish debates a particular point of view which, though not shared by many hon. Members, is shared, I believe, by a considerable number of people in Britain.
Before I get on to the more controversial aspect of my remarks, I would like to say to the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) that I recognise the long and tortuous path they have had to tread in recent months in trying to bring about this move forward for their Constitution Act. I say "their Constitution Act" because it has been passed with bipartisan support with both my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman playing a formal and an informal rôle in the open and behind the scenes to bring about agreement. They have conducted themselves as they believe in the best interests of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.
Those politicians who are to form the Executive are. I believe, very brave men whatever their political views because they are on the ground and must accept the responsibility, and they know it. They are doing something which I say with great humility I do not know whether I would have the courage to do if I were living in the realities of Northern Ireland.
However, I must now return to my point of view. Like the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), I have not supported the Northern Ireland Constitution Act and have voted against the principle on each occasion that it has come before the House. I did so because I believed deeply, sincerely and passionately that it was based upon the fallacies and mistakes of the past. It is based upon the belief that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and shall remain so as long as the majority of the people in Northern Ireland so wish it.
In my view, that cannot be the basis of any meaningful settlement of the tragedy of Ireland and the tragedy that Ireland has inflicted on my country. I had better retract that, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) will immediately challenge me because she sees it the other way. Let us therefore describe it as the tragedy of our entangled history over so many centuries which has brought nothing but misery and destruction on each side of the Irish Sea.
There is a state of euphoria among the people in Britain who believe that the Secretary of State has found a way to overcome the problem. I am certain that a fair body of opinion in Northern Ireland, sickened by the death and destruction, desperately hopes that the constitution will work and that the Executive and the power sharing will be successful. However, I cannot share their hope because I believe it to be based upon a fallacy. All we shall succeed in doing is to put off the crisis from this generation and this Parliament to some future generation—not to far distant—and some other Parliament which will have ultimately to recognise that the destiny of Ireland is a matter for the people of Ireland. I entirely share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South that we do not hold it as our gift in Britain to bring about the unification of Ireland even if we thought that desirable. That could come only from agreement among the Irish people themselves.
As I have said so many times, until Northern Ireland is freed from the shackles of Britain and is made an independent and separate State able to negotiate with the South, Irishman to Irishman, both representing independent identities, there will be no real solution.

Mr. Stallard: Is my hon. Friend recommending UDI for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Wellbeloved: This Parliament should have recognised these facts and should have set about transferring power peacefully and constitutionally as it has done throughout the old empire to the indigenous people of the territories and colonies. I do not suggest that Northern Ireland should follow the example of Rhodesia or anywhere else, but it should have been given the opportunity to create


for itself the sort of State which it wishes to have.

Captain Orr: Surely the hon. Member recognises the difference between granting independence to indigenous people who want it and trying to force it upon those who do not.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am not so certain that within a fairly short time there will not be a majority in Northern Ireland who share my view that independence is the best way forward, free from all the inhibitions that continued links with Britain create.
The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) went through what he saw as the various alternatives facing Northern Ireland. He dismissed independence and said that what would happen if the constitution broke down or power sharing did not work would be a return to direct rule. If the constitution does not work and power sharing breaks down, the most likely reason for the breakdown will be a continuation or an escalation of violence. In such circumstances, to talk about the continuation of direct rule is to say that the right hon. Gentleman believes that the British people will for ever be prepared to see the British Army sent to die for a mistaken policy. That is what will happen if direct dule is considered as the only alternative. We would have to accept that for a long time ahead we would need to send soldiers to Northern Ireland to try to uphold an impossible policy.

Mr. David James: No sensible man would object to a united Ireland, whether it be in the short, medium or long term, but has the hon. Gentleman, in the speech he makes so often, contemplated the type of civil war which would break out if the policies he advocates were now adopted?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I do not accept the assessment that an elected Assembly in Northern Ireland, sitting at a round table with an item on the agenda for transferring power to Northern Ireland, would necessarily lead to the vast civil war that the hon. Gentleman, among others, foresees.
My assessment is different. I do not believe that there is any solution to Northern Ireland which does not contain

grave difficulties and, I regret to say, bloodshed. But my solution of independence is no more likely to bring about bloodshed than the mistaken policies of successive British Governments. The toll of dead over many centuries, while we have tried to impose a British solution on Northern Ireland, would weigh low against what might happen if independence were granted.
It is a matter of individual assessment, and my assessment is as good as that the of the hon. Gentleman. Putting the lid back on the problem is not a proper course of action. We have missed an opportunity to bring finality to the continuing tragedy of our link over Northern Ireland. Time will tell whether those Catholics and Protestants, or those civilians and members of the security forces, who have recently lost their lives in Northern Ireland died in vain.
Regardless of whether there is a temporary period of peace, I am certain in my heart and mind that sooner or later there will be another upsurge of violence and that men will never rest in Northern Ireland as long as the link with Britain continues. The only basic solution is to recognise that fact and to begin to think along the lines of an independent Northern Ireland, which would continue to receive economic support from Britain until such time as the Irish people can co-operate among themselves to bring peace, harmony and prosperity to their land.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. David James: Strangely enough, I find that in the end I am more in agreement with the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) than he might believe.
However, I first wish to join in the chorus of congratulation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his remarkable patience in achieving the situation now reached. Everyone agrees that it is a delicate plant that will need much nurturing, particularly in the first few months. I see some dangers, however, in the hardy growth of this new plant. These dangers lie under two sensitive heads, religion and violence. I put religion first because I have increasingly come to the conclusion that religion is the source of violence.
In this situation there is the problem of the double minority. In the North of Ireland the Catholics are in a minority. They feel very exposed, and it is possible that they have been subjected to maltreatment over the past 50 years. They would like to be rejoined with the Republic.
On the other hand—I ask the hon. Gentleman to take particular note of this—there is in greater Ireland a minority of Protestants who are desperately afraid of a united Ireland because they would be outnumbered. The reason for their fear is simple. Seventy years ago there were 800,000 Protestants in the Republic of Ireland. At the latest count there were 132,000. It is true that more Protestants emigrated from the South because they did not like the 1920 Treaty, and that more have gone to America and elsewhere, but the underlying reason is that, whenever there has been a mixed marriage between Protestant and Catholic, the children of such a union, owing to the Papal decree Ne Temere, have been Catholic. Therefore, whenever the two communities meet in marriage the children are Catholic, and the Protestant culture and religion find themselves rigorously squeezed out. I say that as a Catholic.
Roman Catholic clerics in the Republic and the North see, and clerics in this country are beginning to see, that the entire character and nature of the Catholic Church has changed since the time when I became a convert nearly 30 years ago. In the old days, the logic was that, as the Catholic Church was the one purveyor of the whole truth and nothing but the truth, any reasonable man must bring up his children in that profession. Therefore, the Protestant partner in a mixed marriage was made to sign an undertaking, which under Republic law was binding until fairly recently, that the children would be brought up as Catholics.
However, ever since the days of Pope John, a different spirit has moved the Catholic Church. There is now a widespread belief that to impose one's views in that way is to infringe very deeply on the most fundamental personal liberty.
The practice in the Catholic Church which has grown un in that church since Vatican II is that, if there is a good reason why the marriage should take place in a Protestant church, perhaps

because the bride wants to be married from the church round the corner, so be it, and that if the parents decide that they want to bring up their children in a different faith, they are fully entitled to do so. The wording used in the rest of the world is that parents should use their best endeavours under all circumstances to ensure that children have a proper religious upbringing—no more than that.
When I consider how the tension between the two communities can be lowered, the biggest breakthrough I can see is that the Catholic Church in Ireland, in both the North and the South, should relax the almost Victorian rigours which used to apply and use the modern criterion that parents are entitled to follow their own conscience in such matters, and that what they do with their children is their own affair, so that the Protestants have removed from their future the real fear of genocide, of being obliterated from the map in Ireland. I do not understate that.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: Would my hon. Friend seek to apply that principle to the education of children in Northern Ireland, so that their parents could choose what kind of school they should be sent to?

Mr. James: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. I shall come to that very point as the second leg of my argument.
What I am suggesting is that the Catholic Church in Ireland should fall into line with Catholic practices throughout the greater part of the rest of the world, that it should relax the Papal decree Ne Temere, to the point where children of mixed marriages should be educated in the manner agreed by the parents, not in a manner imposed on them by an external body. One of the hopeful things in 1969 was that mixed marriages in Northern Ireland were about 30 per cent. of all marriages. Such a relaxation as I have suggested would do an enormous amount to relax tension and start to create the sort of circumstances in which the new constitution can work.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) rightly said, the Catholic Church must also make a move in education. In Northern Ireland there are two groups completely polarised, not only in terms of religion and race. One


is undoubtedly Celt and the other is undoubtedly Anglo-Saxon. They are also polarised in the games they play at school and the history books they read. Everything is designed to separate the two cultures. I do not see any hope for a united Ireland, a united Britain or a united Northern Ireland until the parents and the children live together.
The recent settlement represents a great and well-deserved breakthrough for a Catholic community which has suffered many disabilities over the years, but it is in the moment of triumph that people should be generous. The Roman Catholic Church has a major obligation to show generosity at this time. It is no use clerics passing by on the other side of the street saying "This is a political problem. We leave it to you in Westminster." They have a major rôle to play.
Many of the parish and middle clergy see that quite clearly. It has not yet been brought home on the hierarchy either of Ireland or of England. But I cannot believe that in the twentieth century, after Vatican II, the hierarchy will continue to pass by on the other side when men are dying daily in the streets.
The other great difficulty for the new set-up is violence, which flows from the religious problem. I want to do my little bit to bring home more to people that the pathetic thing about violence is how abysmally counter-productive it is. Let us assume for the purpose of argument that all the men of violence are well-intentioned men who wish to see their world come true. I do not believe it for a minute, but let us assume it. One would have expected them to calculate the end product.
Historians are now prepared fully to admit that the one casualty of both 1916 and 1921–22 was any prospect of Irish unity. The Protestant community in the North were frightened away from any such project. I do not want to job back to the past other than to make the point, but I believe that in 1969, the time of the O'Neill-Lemass meeting and so on, relations between the North and South of Ireland were becoming so relaxed that, if the IRA had not come in on the coattails of a respectable and fully justified civil rights movement, there would have been de facto a united Ireland today,

within the terms of our joint membership of the EEC.
The tragedy of the IRA, in so far as one can invest the IRA with any good intentions, is that its good intentions have been totally negatived by the predictable outcome of its own acts. By the same token, the recent outbursts of Protestant violence—designed, we are assured, to keep Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom—succeed only in making my constituents believe that they want no part with any of the people over there. Therefore, both sides' violence is directed against their own best interests.
Both sides suffer from one piece of shortsightedness. They have an emotional conviction that they are soldiers in the front line of battle in a great war, that the war will be over—as though that sort of war will lead to any victor—and the honourable prisoners of war will return in triumph to their villages and communities as heroes.
Like everyone else, I want to see internment ended at the earliest possible moment. But I would not like to feel that anyone who has been sentenced by the courts after a proper trial, whether with or without a jury, can look forward to any such possibility of returning as a hero. Anyone, whether Catholic or Protestant and whatever his motive, who has thrown a bomb or committed another crime should fully understand that he is a criminal and has no chance of remission as part of a general settlement. That has not been said often enough. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will spell it out clearly now.
I welcome the Dublin-London-Belfast meeting which will shortly take place. I have always felt that a lasting solution to the Northern Ireland problem lay in a much closer accord between London and Dublin. There has been a coolness between us for the last 50 years which has been unwarranted by our mutual friendship in other areas. I warmly welcome the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Dublin earlier this year. It was a visit which should have taken place 30 years ago, but better late than never.
Recently there was an article in The Times entitled "How British is Ulster?". The conclusion was that it was not very British. It was not followed by another


article entitled "How Irish is Ulster?". Many people would come to the conclusion that Ulster is neither British nor Irish and that the Catholics in Ulster tend to use the Republic for their own ends in the same way as the Protestants in Ulster tend to use the United Kingdom for their own ends. Perhaps we should consider the possibility that Ulstermen are first and foremost Ulstermen with substantial qualities of their own.
We should envisage an edging towards what I describe in shorthand terms as an English-speaking Benelux situation within the EEC. The Dutch-Belgian precedent is encouraging because the Walloon-Fleming rivalry is surprisingly similar. It was, of course, not totally but substantially resolved between 1825 and 1835. I wonder whether we are not on our way towards a situation in which a totally independent Ireland and a totally independent England, in the closest possible harmony, could be joint sponsors for what is in this situation Luxembourg—namely, Northern Ireland.
It is important that no one should do anything to upset the precarious balance which has been achieved. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on their remarkable achievement over the past 18 months.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I shall not take up all the points that the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) has raised. I always follow his arguments with interest, and I was particularly interested when he referred to education. I am sure that there is unanimity in the House in that there is a need for more attention to be paid to that end of the spectrum in Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland and some parts of England. In the Six Counties it is a valid point.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), I hesitated to participate in the debate. I represent an English constituency and, not being Irish, I felt that today's debate would be an occasion when all the Northern Ireland Members and anyone else with Irish connections would want to participate. It seemed to be almost an interference to participate, but the scene has shifted somewhat since previous debates. The arguments now are

not what they were when we first discussed the matter some months ago.
It appears that we are still very much involved. Indeed, it seems that we are involved as much as ever. I have listened carefully to the debate and I presume to add my small contribution. It will be similar to what I have said many times before when speaking about Northern Ireland.
I do not wish to be churlish. I appreciate the tremendous amount of work which the Secretary of State and his staff have done in arriving at the present situation. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be churlish in not recognising the support which he has had from the whole House in support of his objective. Many of my hon. Friends, with differing points of view and differing shades of opinion, have tried as fat as possible to be constructive in their criticism. I have probably been at odds more often than most hon. Members. I must confess that I still am. Nevertheless I have tried to restrain my views in the interests of some kind of solution to the immediate problems, provided it was a solution resembling a permanent solution.
Far too often we have seen violence erupt in the Six Counties only to be damped down by one device or another and then to rise again, be it five, six, seven or eight years later. I hope that this time, because of the greater interest, understanding and involvement on the part of many more people, we will grasp the nettle once and for all, and arrive at a solution which at least resembles a permanent solution.
I have said before where my sympathies lie and I shall develop what I have said previously. The present solution does not lead me to believe that there is any permanency along the road on which we have embarked. I welcome it as an interim solution or a palliative, but I do not see it as the beginning of a permanent solution.
I accept that we all have our different understandings of Irish history. It seems that I have seen this solution before in a different context—namely, when Lord O'Neill of the Maine, as he now is, was trying many years ago to reach a similar kind of solution. He was trying, as I understood it, to bring the minority into government and to allow them more


participation. We know the lack of success which met his efforts and we saw the kind of opposition which was mounted. Many of the men who are now in a different situation mounted fierce opposition. I suppose that we must be grateful for their change of heart. However, I do not believe that the leopard ever changes its spots to that extent. I am wary of such a sudden change from complete intransigence and non-co-operation. I believe that there are inherent dangers.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down. South (Captain Orr) mentioned the haste with which events have moved. I know that it is necessary to make haste slowly in Irish affairs. I have felt in the past few days that matters have been rushed unnecessarily. That may be because the Secretary of State felt that he should present some kind of solution.
There are all sorts of moves and motives afoot. God knows that the Government need a success story more than anything else. Perhaps this is not the story, but they certainly need the Secretary of State's talents in other directions. It is almost as though the Prime Minister was saying to him "Come on, hurry up, let us get out of this. We need you over here. Wrap this thing up. Whatever you have to do, wrap it up in some fashion and get back here. We are in real trouble." I fear that a cabinet of men of the calibre of the Secretary of State would not get the Prime Minister out of his present trouble. I do not blame him for trying.
The Prime Minister has landed us with a hotch-potch that few people in the Six Counties will understand or accept when we begin to delve into it. What duties does the Minister see the Chief Whip exercising in this kind of set-up? What is the Chief Whip to do in this kind of enforced, legalised statute-imposed coalition? I think that many people will be misled or will not understand the functions of the Chief Whip, as we know the post, in the new set-up. We are far from the beginning of a permanent solution. This is a good attempt but we have by no means seen the end of the problems in Northern Ireland, and I hope that there will be no attempt by the Government to claim any such thing.
I was disappointed by the Secretary of State's references to the Council of

Ireland. I make no apologies for the fact that I have pinned some hopes on the Council of Ireland because I see it as part of a long-term move towards a permanent solution. I mentioned it months ago when arguing for a bill of rights, a Council of Ireland and the beginning of the end of partition. I have not shifted from that position. The Council of Ireland, therefore, is more important to me than it appears to be to the Secretary of State. I do not think that it has been given the kind of powers, teeth and importance that many of us hoped for when we read the White Paper. The council was envisaged as long ago as 1920 and many of us hoped that it would be a much more powerful body than is envisaged now.
For example, it does not seem that the Council of Ireland is to be given the power to make any kind of major decision. I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would at least be able to say that he could foresee the council having, for example, overall supervision over the police forces, North and South. It is something that he might have thought about and suggested as one of the functions of the Council of Ireland, amongst others. But that would have needed some initiative from the right hon. Gentleman himself. It would have needed him to say that that was how he envisaged the Council of Ireland. But he has not said it. He has left the Council of Ireland up in the air, as it were, with no apparent powers.
Little has been said in the debate about partition. I have not shifted from my view that partition caused the problem. Partition has kept it going for 50 years, and I do not see a permanent solution while the border remains. I am perhaps in a small minority of Members of this House, but I firmly believe that there is no permanent solution outside the ultimate reunification of the 32 countries, despite all the difficulties. I had hoped that we would be firm, even with all the difficulties and troubles, and would have said "Any road which does not lead to the ultimate reunification of Ireland is not on, but we will discuss all the access roads, the slip roads and the rest which will lead to it."

Mr. Wellbeloved: In trying to achieve that, does not my hon. Friend accept, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Leeds,


South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said, that it does not lie within the gift of the British Parliament but that reunification can come only by the will of the people of Ireland as a whole? Does not my hon. Friend also accept that what I am advocating—two independent Irelands—is much more likely to create the circumstances in which Irishmen speak to Irishmen and would be more likely in the end to lead to some understanding than if Northern Ireland continued in some form or other as part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Stallard: I recognise and accept my hon. Friend's argument. He has put it many times before. I cannot however, accept his phraseology about "our gift". Such phrases, especially in the Irish context, serve only to stir up antagonisms, because there is far too much talk of making gifts and concessions to a very proud and independent people. I opposed the holding of the referendum for these reasons, and I believe that this is where my hon. Friend makes his mistake. In that referendum we did not consult the people of Ireland. We consulted only a few. Had we consulted the people of all Ireland, we would no doubt have had a different result. It is not true to say that it is within our gift to give reunification. I would like to consult the people of all Ireland to see what they wish to do.

Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend could also consult Great Britain about it.

Mr. Stallard: However, I am convinced that, until the border disappears by agreement or by arrangement—I have not given up hope—there will be no permanent solution. But people sometimes say "Why keep on talking about partition? Why bother when the people of the Six Counties have said that they want to remain part of the United Kingdom?" One has to look deeply to find whether they have any allegiance to the United Kingdom.

Mr. McMaster: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider that last remark. It was at very great cost in the last two world wars that Northern Ireland remained in the United Kingdom. We provided our men for the Armed Forces of the Crown and we provided vital bases for Britain. Indeed, it is doubtful whether Britain would have remained free if she had not the Ulster bases available in the Battle of the Atlantic.

Mr. Stallard: I accept the hon. Gentleman's censure. I most certainly did not mean that the people of the Six Counties did not contribute to our victory. I remind him, however, that hundreds of thousands of people from the Republic also took part in the struggle and made sacrifices. But that kind of numbers game does not get us anywhere. There was universal sacrifice by Irishmen of both North and South in the two world wars and we are all very grateful to them.
One can go on and on with this argument. Winston Churchill said that he never thought of Ireland and her problems without remembering people, and he mentioned particularly Paddy Finucane, who played so heroic a part in the Battle of Britain. Therefore, as I have said, I do not think that a numbers game really produces any positive result, but I accept completely and without reservation the tribute to the part played by the people of Northern Ireland.
As I was saying, people sometimes say to me "Why talk about partition?" At a recent discussion in which I took part, it was wrapped up quite well by a person who said "It is almost like saying' Why talk about Socialism?" We know that capitalism will be with us after the next election, so why talk about Socialism at this stage?"
The answer is, of course, nearly the same in both cases. I said to that gentleman that, as a Socialist, I believed that capitalism was the cause of my problems and complaints against society. While capitalism is still with us, I strive to change those parts of society that I can manage to change right now. But it is not forgotten that the main cause of these problems is the system itself.
The same is broadly true of partition. I believe that it was the cause of the problem of Ireland and is still a contributory factor. I think that it will remain. But that does not mean to say that I shall not strive to change those parts of it which can be changed now until the ultimate complete end of partition comes about.
My complaint is that we have not given any firm declaration of intent that one day partition will be ended. We have rather gone in the other direction and kidded a lot of people that we do not seem to think that partition will ever be ended. But I believe that it will be


ended. I believe that that is the only practical solution and the only permanent solution. It was for that reason that I voted against the provision of the new constitution of Northern Ireland which seemed to perpetuate partition of the 32 counties.
I come to another serious bone of contention. Without some real movement on the question of internment, there can be no progress. During a recess in 1971 I spent some time, with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran), trying to have Parliament recalled when Mr. Faulkner, the new Chief Executive, introduced internment. Internment was wrong then and it is still wrong. On many occasions I have said that were we discussing prisoners in Santiago, Guatemala, Rhodesia or South Africa, or in any other part of the world which was far enough away to be safe, we would be having mass demonstrations, debates, early-day motions, and so on, to try to secure their release. But because it is in Britain that hundreds of people are in gaol without trial, there is hardly a whimper. It is to our discredit that we have allowed this to continue for so long.
I have spoken to people who have not participated directly in the troubles but who have been "lifted" every time there have been moves towards internment. I am told that some people have spent up to 15 years, over a period, in gaol or in camps because they were openly self-confessed Republicans. We would not tolerate that if it happened anywhere else. But we have tolerated it and it is happening here. There can be no beginnings of a solution until that is ended.
I have discussed that matter recently with people who are directly involved in the problems arising from internment and harassment, in the minority areas at least. There can be no move towards a permanent solution until we have given a firm commitment that internment will be ended, a commitment unlike that given by the Secretary of State today, which was the same commitment as we have had previously, and following the decision to introduce internment. It is "if and when", and perhaps "but". But it must be much more definite than that. We must say that we intend to end internment, detention or imprisonment,

whatever fancy word is used for it. People are incarcerated without charge or trial, and that must cease. There must be a definite date for the end of that kind of thing.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford in his thesis about withdrawing troops now.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I did not say that. I must correct my hon. Friend. I have not said today, nor have I said on any other occasion, that Britain should withdraw her troops immediately. I have always said that certain things must be done first.

Mr. Stallard: I accept what my hon. Friend said. I must have misunderstood him.

Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend did misunderstand.

Mr. Stallard: I have always believed him to be an advocate of the complete withdrawal of British troops. I do not agree with that at present. I certainly agree that we ought to be in a position immediately to withdraw troops from those stress areas where they have caused much harassment, hardship and distress, particularly in Belfast and Londonderry. Firmer commitments could have been given in that respect. It should have been said that we intend to withdraw troops, perhaps putting a date on final withdrawal, and that we intended to replace them immediately with, perhaps, people's police. There are people in the stress areas who would be prepared to take on that job. Hon. Members may smile—"She smiled sweetly and that is all she said".
There is something to be said for asking people to take responsibility, in their neighbourhood, for the kind of law and order which they can implement immediately. This ought to have happened long ago. From my visits and discussions there, I have learned that this idea is not so far-fetched as some hon. Members may think. It could apply in both communities. Perhaps then the forces of both communities could be brought together, because we would have nurtured that kind of responsibility in the streets. We ought to have been able to say that we would withdraw the troops from those areas on that basis, perhaps putting them


in barracks pending total withdrawal, and putting a date on that.
The Secretary of State failed to mention that factor as deliberately as I should have liked, but I had hoped that he would say much more about the ultimate withdrawal and the withdrawal of troops immediately from the stress areas.
I was disappointed about the Bill of Rights which we tried to introduce some time ago by a Private Member's Bill. The Government have now lost that completely. Although there was a time when they even mouthed the phrase "Bill of Rights", they have now watered it down to such an extent that it almost no longer exists. It should be revived. I had hoped that the Secretary of State could have announced the date for the end of internment and the withdrawal of troops. Had he done so, we should have been at the beginning of the road to a solution.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I agree with one thing that was said by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard). That was the way in which he described the constitutional proposals enunciated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North used the term "palliative". That is the right word. A palliative deadens pain and hides the real trouble which is not therefore cured. That is what is happening, and will happen, as a result of these proposals.
Some political commentators forecast that the Secretary of State would return to the House today to be given a hero's welcome. But my right hon. Friend reminds me—I say this kindly—of a Roman general returning to the capital from some outpost during the declining days of the Roman Empire, with a small band of captives—in this case the members of the Northern Ireland Executive—as evidence of the success of his venture but keeping hidden a situation fraught with the most dreadful dangers. But the Secretary of State returns here, if the Press is to be believed—as the saviour of Britain, industrially and economically. However, my right hon. Friend will find that the trade unionists will not be bought off by his charm and affability, as were the political leaders of the law-abiding majority in Northern Ireland.
I look forward with interest to the day when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland cements together, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the militant trade unionists and the land speculators in one happy body. Somehow I do not think he will succeed in achieving that.
We are all agreed that there should not be a feeling of euphoria as a result of what the Secretary of State had to say. That is right. We all hope that the enforced power-sharing Executive will lead to harmony. But I fear that it will introduce an era of political instability in Northern Ireland and will result in the renewal of violence to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) referred, a renewal of violence by the IRA, which has made it perfectly clear that it will maintain the struggle to achieve a united Ireland. I pray that the campaign of terror does not escalate. I condemn, as I have always condemned, violence from any quarter, irrespective of the reasons which promote it.
I deplore one innovation introduced by the Secretary of State in recent months. That is the way in which the religion of those arrested is announced and the religious convictions of convicted persons are made public. That only helps further to divide the community. This practice should be stopped. I hope that the Minister of State will take note of that and persuade the Secretary of State to abandon such a bad practice.
The Secretary of State's announcement has revealed the deliberate creation of twice the number of Departments which formerly existed as being necessary for the proper administration of Northern Ireland. This is being done to provide political largesse to enforce power sharing, and it is hardly an auspicious beginning for the Executive. Obviously, it was necessary in the juggling act which the Secretary of State has performed, but when the responsibilities of some of the additional departments are examined it will be found that previously their work was largely undertaken by civil servants. For example, the work of the Department of Law Reform was undertaken by a civil servant.
The last holder of that office was Dr. A. J. Donaldson, who is highly esteemed and is a foremost constitutional lawyer.


While he was the director of law reform, political considerations in the reform of law were kept apart. If this Department is created it will become a talking point in the Assembly. It is wrong that controversy over law reform should be introduced in this way into the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The work of the Department of Information Services was also previously undertaken by civil servants, but here is a new Department created in order to give a job to one of the boys. I do not know whether the holder of this and the other additional posts will be paid, and how much. Certainly the Unionists will occupy posts which are relatively unimportant, such as the Department of Information Services. Nobody can say that it ranks as a major department. So, while on the surface it appears that there is a majority of posts in the hands of Unionists, that majority merely has charge of three important posts—the Chief Executive, the Department of Education and the Department of Agriculture.
With regard to the Department of Finance, which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) mentioned, that Department will be continually under the surveillance and control of the Treasury at Westminster. It will not be able to spend a single penny without Treasury approval. So, though it is an all-important post and other Departments are subject to it, the person holding it will have to come here with cap in hand to get his money.
It is interesting to remember that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that the Northern Ireland Constitution Act was the law of the land and could not be changed and was not negotiable. But the Secretary of State has a proposal to change that Act to create the additional departments.
As part of the package deal, we have to have a Department dealing with housing. Is not this a bad and retrograde step? The Northern Ireland Housing Executive was established at the request of the Government, the then Labour Government, to take housing out of the political arena. Support for that approach, which is a sensible approach, was contained—I am not certain about this—in the Cameron report, which

backed up the decision of the Labour Government. Therefore, the decision to create a Department of Housing brings housing back into political controversy. This is the saddest victory for political convenience that the Secretary of State has been able to arrange.
There is one other post which the Unionists will hold—that of the Department of the Environment. It has merely been hived off the important Ministry of Development, which is in the hands of the SDLP. What it will do I do not know but certainly housing is in the hands of the SDLP along with local government and planning. I do not think that the Department of the Environment is all that important, although I agree that pollution, which must be one of its concerns, is something that we should all avoid and I am sure the person looking after the department will have a busy time. But I do not regard it as a post of consequence in the new Executive.
I fear that we shall face a winter of violence. I hope that it will not happen, but we have to be realists and face the fact that it may happen.
The Conservative Party has traditionally stood for the maintenance of law and order. I have refreshed my mind by reading the old campaign guide for the last General Election. It reminded me, if I needed reminding, that the Conservative Party prides itself in taking a stand against the manifestations of disorder. But it was this Conservative Government which gave way to the men of violence in Northern Ireland and showed the law-abiding majority that violence paid substantial dividends.
Concessions were wrung from the Secretary of State even by those men who were arrested, charged and convicted in the ordinary courts of the land for acts of violence. He took the disastrous course of creating a special category of political prisoners, so that we have the extraordinary situation that a so-called political prisoner, convicted of a serious charge, enjoys privileges not given to an ordinary prisoner who may be guilty of a similar or less serious offence.
This is a sad situation, but it is not the only achievement of this Government in Northern Ireland. It was not the Labour Party, which is well know to have


a romantic attachment to the concept of a united Ireland, and which draws much of its support from the 1 million registered voters of the Republic living in Great Britain, which destroyed people's faith in political pledges. It was left to this Government to sow the seeds which may destroy the Unionist Party as we know it—although I am confident that there will emerge a new, progressive Unionist Party which will again benefit Northern Ireland.
Certainly, the Government have helped permanently to undermine the faith of the Ulster majority in the honour and probity of a Conservative administration. I have to say these things, because this is what the ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland think those who were and are strong members and supporters of the Unionist Party.
In March 1972—that is not very far back in Irish history—after a most painstaking and careful analysis by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of the Ulster situation, they came to the considered conclusion that all that was required was for the Stormont Government to hand over control of law and order to Westminster. There was no suggestion at that time that there was a need to wipe out the Stormont Parliament or Government, to send the Queen's representative packing with a pension or to insist upon a compulsory coalition between Unionists and Republicans. At that time. Mr. Faulkner said categorically that he could not remain in office if he had to hand over responsibility for law and order. That is why we had direct rule.
But what has happened since March 1972, under the direct supervision of Her Majesty's Government, to make the Government change their minds so fundamentally? When I asked in the House for one example of discriminatory legislation passed by Stormont, the Secretary of State had to admit that there was non. What happened was that the IRA enormously stepped up and intensified its campaign of terror and destruction, so that hardly a town or village in the Province has not been visited by these evil men. The Secretary of State, the epitome of law and order, felt that he had to treat personally and directly with the IRA on one occasion.
During this period, the SDLP—I am glad to see that the hon. Member for

Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has returned; I thought that he was at the Palace and that perhaps he might have been detained there—was continually upping its demands with every new and frightful excess of savagery by the IRA. New demands came thick and fast, and it seemed that every demand was met with concessions by the Secretary of State.
No wonder Mr. Austin Currie, with his eloquence, when addressing one great SDLP gathering, told the people "Why stop now, when we are winning?". They did not stop. Certainly they have won, but they won because of IRA violence. That is the message that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone conveyed to the House, along with the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey)—that the SDLP got in on this wave of violence. But, once returned to power, it has kicked those who raised it to power.
The Ulster people clamour for the ordinary rights of British citizenship enjoyed in other parts of the United Kingdom. They wish for nothing more than to live in peace and harmony with their neighbours, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic. But, as time goes on, they find themselves treated less favourably than English, Welsh and Scottish citizens.
Much has been made—the Secretary of State referred to it today—of the amount of money—which has been poured into Northern Ireland, much of it to pay for damage wrought by terrorism. Of course we are grateful for this financial relief, and a vast and expensive programme of reconstruction will clearly be necessary to set the Province on the road to recovery. But money alone is not enough. What we want is peace and trust in Northern Ireland between the communities. We want reconciliation, and that is what must come. But it cannot come while there is violence, and I do not believe that the Secretary of State's announcement will bring it about.
The Government must think carefully before they force the majority to abandon the basic rights of British citizens and accept constitutional arrangements which will create deeper divisions and greater bitterness and ill-will among the majority. The lasting effect of this cannot be assessed. However should the attempt to establish or maintain a new


power-sharing Executive with Republicans fail—there are many reasons why this proposed coalition of irreconcilables may not succeed—I can only pray that the feelings of betrayal and frustration which would then engulf the Roman Catholic minority will not produce a holocaust of inter-communal strife on a scale far greater than anything that we have experienced so far.
If this happens, it will not be the responsibility of people like myself, who have sought to show that the system is unworkable and inherently dangerous. It is wrong for the Secretary of State or any of his hon. Friends to condemn us for expressing these feelings. It is our duty, as public representatives, to convey to Members of this House and to this Government what people in Northern Ireland are thinking and what they fear for the future.
There is no question of a refusal to share power with a religious minority. A broadcast by Independent Television News immediately after the meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council said that the unpledged Unionists were opposed to power sharing with Roman Catholics. After the meeting of the Ulster Unionists' Standing Committee, the BBC nationally broadcast the same statement. But it is a complete distortion of the truth.
We are opposed to power sharing not with Roman Catholics but with those whose aim is a united Ireland. We would not expect to see in this House at any time those on the extreme Right being forced to share power with those on the extreme Left. That is a very slight analogy of the enforced power-sharing Executive which the Secretary of State has announced.
I want to see in Northern Ireland an administration which will allow the representatives of all political parties to play their part in the formulation of policy. Already the Northern Ireland Constitution Act provides an interesting development, with the suggestion of departmental committees. This could be developed and amended to provide opportunities for good, constructive work by those who wish to participate in the process of Government.
The proposed Executive will not be able to put forward controversial legislation. The 1968 Education Act would never

have got through this Executive because the SDLP and the Roman Catholic Church were bitterly opposed to it, yet that is an Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament which has benefited all children throughout the Province. It would not get through the present Executive. Therefore, I fear the Executive will be reduced to producing the lowest common factor of legislation which is acceptable to the Right, to the Left, to the Unionists and to the Republicans. This is not a recipe for the progress we all want to see.
There is no future for Northern Ireland except as a totally integrated part of the United Kingdom with increased representation in this House. Only in this way can we create a fair system acceptable to the majority and the minority, safeguarding the living standards of the whole community. It would diminish the all-too-frequent opportunities for parochial animosities which dominated most debates in the old Stormont Parliament and which we are already beginning, to see in the new Assembly. The system which I envisage would provide greater opportunities for the development of good will and trust in the Assembly and, through the machinery of consultative committees, among the people in the country. It would restore faith in the political process among people in the Province. There is neither trust nor faith anywhere in Northern Ireland today, and both are essential if we are to make progress.
In my judgment, a compulsory power-sharing Executive re-created at least every four years, and perhaps even more often, with border polls and the stresses and strains which this will lead to, will not establish the conditions of trust, confidence, security and harmony so essential to the growth of democratic institutions. For that reason, I cannot greet with any pleasure the speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: This is the first time I have spoken in a debate, under you, Mr. Murton, as Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I take the opportunity of expressing to you my personal congratulations and good wishes on your elevation.
The formation of an Executive-designate represents a remarkable


personal success for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I genuinely join with others in expressing my congratulations for what has been achieved. Before going further into the important statement which the Secretary of State made this afternoon, I wish to make one comment about the speech by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard). The hon. Gentleman said that during his speech a Conservative Member smiled. I was not smiling—I was wincing. If ever I heard a recipe for total disaster in Northern Ireland, it was in the argument that the hon. Gentleman was advocating.
There are some questions arising out of the Secretary of State's statement which must be asked and some observations which must be made. In making them, I must assure my right hon. Friend that I do not seek to probe the issue in any sense of churlishness, but I am motivated by two considerations. I refer to my high personal regard for my right hon. Friend and my deep concern over the future of Northern Ireland.
For five years the province of my birth, upbringing and home has been mercilessly bruised and battered politically and physically. The Ulster people have endured and suffered a tragedy on a scale never to be forgotten. A growing and relentless mood of understandable despair has characterised public attitudes.
Politically speaking, as a Unionist I have seen the sad spectacle of a powerful party rent asunder not electorally but from within. There has been the unedifying sight of policies being personalised and personalities relentlessly vying with one another for the popular limelight. There was nobody more blindingly angry and embittered than I when in March 1972 Stormont was destroyed. I believe that the decision was wrong-headed and misguided, but Parliament, by a massive majority thought otherwise. I admit that even at that unfortunate time I maintained a conviction which I held ever since I first entered politics.
I have a deep commitment to the concept of regional political devolution. For that reason I supported the Second Reading of the Constitution Bill in this House earlier this year. Although I welcomed what happened on that occasion, I did so with considerable reservations. That Act

is far from perfect and contains an element of contrived artificiality which I found somewhat repugnant. Nevertheless both sides of the House by a vast majority considered that it offered a possible solution. Indeed, it may offer a solution despite its grave inbuilt weaknesses. Some four or five years of agony in Northern Ireland have passed. Even half a solution is well worth trying rather than seeking to contrive a variety of arguments on the lines that, unless one gets the whole cake, one does not want anything.
I believe that that Act represents all that is currently on offer. This has been the argument advanced by the British Government through the summer. Although this may be a small point, I personally regret the need for any amendment of that legislation. I say this not because I believe that 11 Executive members are enough or more than enough, and indeed there may be a strong argument for the additional five persons. What is causing me anxiety is that at the first test some form of alteration is required. No matter how obvious or uncontroversial that alteration may be, it is a bad start. I say this in no aggressive sense.

Mr. Orme: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that these proposals on the question of numbers should have been "permed" one from the other?

Mr. Pounder: I would not disagree with that argument. But there is always a danger in putting in a fixed figure. It can appear to be good, but any flexibility has gone and one finds at the first test that one is up against a legislative situation which requires amendment.
In an emotion-charged situation in Ulster today it is easy to side with the felings of emotion. Indeed, it is politically popular so to do. But is it in the best interests of Northern Ireland for emotionalism to dictate the course of politics? At the end of the day it is cold, hard reasoning and logic, and that alone, which offers the best solution. As in any society emotion has its place, but we must seek to curb and control it. For that reason, despite, all the pressures on those who feel emotionally, we must do our utmost to subordinate those feelings to arguments based on reason and logic. The Constitution Act may prove to be


unworkable, as may the Assembly and the Executive, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said, integration is not on offer. To me UDI is as repugnant a concept as is the continuance of direct rule with all the problems that inevitably stem from it.

Mr. Kilfedder: I missed hearing the speech made by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) but I remember reading a speech made by him not very long ago in which he said that total integration was the last resort. I am not certain about that, but that was what I read in the Press.

Mr. Pounder: My hon. Friend is a much more avid newspaper reader than I am and I must admit that I was not aware of any feeling on the part of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford either for or against integration. I was seeking to take up his argument that integration was not on offer.
UDI is as utterly repugnant as is the continuance of direct rule. We are left, therefore, with only one other course, which is to see whether a local Assembly can be made to work. In my view it is totally wrong to approach a situation, merely because one does not like it 100 per cent., by saying "I do not like it 100 per cent., so I do not like it at all." This is the black-and-white type of argument which has motivated so many discussions in Northern Ireland. The legislation may be seriously deficient, but that can only be determined conclusively after it has been tried.
There are many people who share the view that the Assembly should and must be given an opportunity to get off the ground. I do not believe that this is motivated necessarily by a sense of war weariness. I think it is more the desire to see a local Assembly in existence and operating with all the limitations that it will suffer initially. Once it is in operation and has had a chance to prove itself, let a judgment be made.
Accepting as I do the overwhelming priority to be the eradication of violence in all its varied and hideous forms and of those who perpetrate it, the only way that this can be accomplished is by the vigilance of the security forces, who deserve high praise for their courage and

determination, and by the revulsion of public opinion against violence and its perpetrators. In a democracy the only effective outlet for public opinion is through its elected representatives. As a consequence, back we come again to the need for the new Assembly and the need to give it a chance.
Entrenched positions cemented over many decades of history, and sometimes a turbulent history at that, will not be changed merely by ministerial exhortations. It has been my experience during the 20 months of direct rule that a major cause of political distress at home has been the apparent unevenness of Westminster pressure on the two main political parties in Northern Ireland. The feeling existed that the Unionist Party made many concessions but that they were not matched by corresponding concessions by other political parties. If anyone takes the trouble even cursorily to study my right hon. Friend's speech today, it is clear that very real concessions and compromises have been reached by the two main participants. I do not exclude the Alliance Party out of any sense of unkindness. It was not in a position to make concessions of the kind likely to be required of both the Unionist and the Social Democratic and Labour Parties.
Those people who have felt so strongly in the past about a spirit of compromise which they have felt to be a one sided operation will realise, I hope, in the light of what they have heard today from the Secretary of State, that there has been a genuine concession. I believe that this will do much to alleviate the sense of public suspicion which existed prior to today's announcement.
As a pledged Unionist, in Assembly terms, I must confess that the package looks to me to be attractive, reasonable and workable. But if the Executive is to have any chance of success the compromise must not exist just for today, on day one. It must be able to withstand the stresses and strains which inevitably will be placed upon it, in what form one does not know and at what time one does not know. But nothing is more sure than that there will be immense pressures, possibly in a few weeks from now. It is clear that infinite patience will be required.
For a variety of reasons, Her Majesty's Government have wanted to get the


Executive and the Assembly off the ground. But there is a danger in excessive speed. As a result of fatigue people may reach agreements which in the cold light of the following day appear much less attractive. That is one of the dangers of haste and, although this important start has been made, I hope that the rest of the package will not be put together at a galloping speed.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) made a great deal of play about the creation of a new party, and the rôle of the Chief Whip and who he is to be. But if one accepts that in a crisis situation there is a case for some form of coalition of people whose views are very different, it can be justified if—and it is an "if" to which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will no doubt provide an answer in due course—there is a common will towards a common goal. That is the essence of any coalition, and I should like to know what the approach will be because of the pressures which inevitably will be put on the Assembly and the Executive.
I apologise if my remarks reflect a sense of anxiety. They are not made in any spirit of doom or criticism. We have been through five years of this, and as a result we are slightly apprehensive. After a long and hard winter it is easy to imagine that the sudden appearance of a swallow means that summer is approaching. However, the poor swallow may have lost its way or may have fallen out of the nest. That may be the situation with which we are now confronted.
In the re-creation of a regional political structure in Northern Ireland, I believe that the Executive and the Assembly will succeed. But only a gambler would make a firm prediction at this stage. I wish them well.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Richard Luce: I understand and sympathise with many of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder).
I give a warm welcome, but with caution, to the announcement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made today. I say "with caution" because it is clear that this is only the

beginning of what must be a very long and hard road for those who are to take part in this power-sharing Executive. I say "with caution" too because whenever I speak in Irish debates I do so with trepidation and humility as an Englishman with no Irish blood. It is well known and well said in many parts that the English do not understand the Irish question but that as soon as they begin to come near to doing so the Irish change the question. That may have been the case, but I hope that it is not on this occasion.
It must be the overwhelming interest of all of us to see progress towards peace and stability in Ireland. But, as is the case so often, perhaps tragically so, it takes a catalyst to produce new opportunities for progress. This has been the case recently in the Middle East, and it seems to me that the melting pot of the turbulent history of Ireland produces a catalyst with dangers and disasters but also with new opportunities. As I see it, it is our task to find new opportunities to seek progress.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) set out one or two of the options that this Government have faced over the past few months, and I want to say how much I agree with my right hon. Friend. The first one is to consider a commitment to unity between the North and the South. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) suggested that this should be a firm commitment. However, I believe that it would be totally disastrous in the present situation.
The second option was some form of UDI or independence for the North. Again, I believe that that would lead to a lowering in the standards of living of the people of the North, and that could be disastrous.
The third option might be some form of total integration with Great Britain. I believe that, too, would be utterly disastrous, for obvious reasons.
Therefore, we have a fourth option, which is the present course or a variation of it. That is the right policy to pursue. I take that view for two reasons. First, most of us by now recognise that the Northern Ireland situation is unique and that we must, therefore, find a unique formula to sort it out. Secondly, in view


of the different interests and aspirations of both the minority and the majority in Northern Ireland, the only way to seek peace is by compromise and moderation.
We all have our own ideas how in the long term this may evolve, but one thing above all else required to reach the agreement that was reached last night was courage on the part of the leaders of all three parties who have agreed to take part in this Executive. Often it requires more courage to pursue the policy of moderation than to take extreme views.
I believe that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has shown outstanding courage and deserves success and credit. I hope that the people who support the hon. Gentleman and his party will follow him through thick and thin in making this power-sharing Executive work.
I say precisely the same about Mr. Faulkner. He, too, has shown great courage in leading moderate and sensible Unionists. We wish him well.
The leaders of the Alliance Party—this is no disrespect to them—although they have not had to show quite so much by way of concessions to join the Executive, have also shown courage, and I wish them well.
I cannot make all these comments without referring to the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), who, in my view, has shown the greatest degree of statesmanship in this House. One of the crucial aspects in the development of the Irish situation has been the bipartisan approach by both the Government and the Opposition. I believe that all credit should go to the hon. Member for Leeds, South for the leadership that he has shown in this respect.
On the security side, the record of the British Army in Northern Ireland is quite outstanding. I do not believe that any other army in the world could have achieved success with the patience and perseverance that the British Army has shown.
I should like to see a positive effort on the part of the British Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Southern Republican Government towards a more effective policy in terms of joint security—for example, joint law enforcement and co-operation between

the police and the armies of the North and of the South. For all those in the North and in the South who want peace and stability—that is the majority of the people—a co-ordinated effort must be demanded.
I turn now to the Council of Ireland. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that we must approach this matter slowly, carefully and cautiously. The first and most important priority is to get the Executive working effectively. Following that, we can get the members of the Council of Ireland to meet and work together. I hope that at the top of its agenda will be the maintenance of security and law and order in the North and, secondly, the possibility of functional agreements in the industrial and commercial spheres which would be of mutual benefit both to the North and to the South.
My last point concerns the response of the Southern Republican Government to the announcement of the agreement this week. I hope that they will respond not only in terms of closer co-operation on security, but by examining certain articles of their Constitution and making a firm gesture to both Great Britain and Northern Ireland which will help the situation. The biggest gesture would be to drop that part of their constitution which lays claim to the whole of Northern Ireland. That would not only ease the political situation but would be a statesmanlike response to the situation in the North. I should like that to happen as soon as possible.
Everyone who believes in peace prays that all those in the three parties who are taking a lead and showing so much courage will persevere and make this proposal work. The Northern Ireland situation in the last four years has been eating like a cancer into the health and confidence of the United Kingdom. If we can make this proposal succeed we in the United Kingdom and in Ireland can again hold our heads on high with the rest of the world.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Over many years now I have engaged in debates in this House on Northern Ireland. Indeed, since 1968, 1969 and 1970 many watersheds, as they were called, have appeared in the debates. I honestly


believe that this is the greatest watershed we have had since the recent outbreak of violence in Northern Ireland in 1969 and 1970.
Many solutions have been tried and many possible permutations of victory have been put forward by various people involved in the struggle.
The Secretary of State has put forward a proposal which has been arrived at by the leaders of the Northern Ireland political parties freely and without cornpuction. But, again, the problem of Northern Ireland must be faced by the Northern Irish people. No solution can be imposed by any source outside the island of Ireland.
The dramatic developments which have taken place since the elections in June in Northern Ireland are a clear indication of a desperate yearning for peace and an end to violence by the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland — Unionists. Nationalists, Republicans and others. We have seen so much death, tragedy and destruction rent in our land by the men of violence, and I believe that the Northern Ireland community as a whole is now prepared to make concessions which in the past would have been unthinkable.
I understand that during my unavoidable absence this evening bitter speeches were made from this side of the House by the hon. Members for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) and Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus). Indeed, since my return I have heard the speech by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and a snatch of the speech by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). I believe that, having expressed their sentiments, those hon. Members must be asked one question to which an answer is demanded. That question is: what is the alternative to the present Executive? What would they do to stop the killing and the murders in Northern Ireland? What are they prepared to concede? Are they prepared to continue with their demands, and not to see the arguments or point of view of their political opponents? Do they want to claim total victory over those whom they regard as their opponents?
The first criticism following the announcement last night about the Executive came from the Provisional IRA. I

believe that I and my party were called arch-collaborators and traitors. I ask myself now in all conscience: with whom am I collaborating? Am I collaborating against the interests of the Northern Irish people? Am I collaborating against the interests of the men and women, boys and girls who live in my area of Belfast and are absolutely terrified out of their lives at present? Even I, as an elected representative, do not want my young daughters to go out into the streets on these dark winter evenings for fear that a car may come along and mow them down with shotgun bullets, as has happened to others so often in the past.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman said that he had heard the snatches of a bitter speech by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and myself. I think he has made a mistake, because, had he heard my speech, he would have realised that I welcomed this proposal. Perhaps he can tell me what is his attitude towards the rent and rate strike.

Mr. Fitt: I apologise if I have misrepresented what was said by the hon. Member. I will certainly answer the question. In the recent election in June, held under the terms of the Constitution Act, the people of Northern Ireland were given the chance to say whether they wanted to bring into operation a new political system whereby it would be possible for all people in Northern Ireland, majority and minority, to participate in the elected Government of their own State. This was well known before a single vote was cast in those elections. My own party made it clear during the contest that we wanted to participate in a form of administration in Northern Ireland which would be acting not in any partisan way but in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mrs. McAliskey: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Will he not admit that his party, in fighting that election, not only said that it wanted to take part in a non-partisan administration but said quite clearly that it would not do so until there was an end to internment?

Mr. Fitt: The election manifesto of the SDLP can he had quite easily. What we said was that we wanted to bring to an end the disaster of internment. We said we wanted to bring into being in Northern Ireland an acceptable police force


with which the whole community could identify. We said that we wanted to bring into operation a Council of Ireland, some means or institution whereby the people of the whole island of Ireland, North and South, would begin to get to know each other in the 32 counties. What we said was that, given a favourable development and an end to violence, we would call for an amnesty for political prisoners.
We recognised that many young boys and girls had been caught up in the wave of violence which has hit Northern Ireland. We said clearly to our electors that this was our policy. The Unionist Party under the leadership of Mr. Faulkner also said that it wanted to see worthwhile political institutions coming into being in Northern Ireland and that it was prepared to work within the framework of the Constitution. The Alliance Party said it would do the same.
Everyone knows that the word "democratic" in Northern Ireland is much-bandied about and much misunderstood. When the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) or Down, North say that something is undemocratic in Northern Ireland, we know what they mean. They mean that they do not like it; it does not fall in with their way of political thinking. Mr. Faulkner's Unionist Party was returned with 21 seats, the SDLP 19 and the Alliance Party eight. After much misgiving and thought, and deep consideration for all the feelings of our electorate, we decided that we would take this courageous step.
I have no hesitation in saying that it was courageous. I am not being unduly modest about this, and I am not terribly concerned about the criticism which could be levelled at me by those who are determined to wreck this. I think it was courageous, because I did not find it very easy to sit down and talk to Mr. Faulkner, a Unionist, and I am certain that Mr. Brian Faulkner, as a Unionist, did not find it very easy or palatable to talk to me.
We are all prisoners of our past. The situation in Northern Ireland was not brought about over a short period. We are all prisoners of three or four centuries of Irish history. Since the partitioning of Ireland in 1920 there has existed a one-party State. One party was in

government for 50 years, and there was never any possibility that that Government could be removed by the wishes of the electorate. That was because the very basis on which the Northern Ireland State was founded was in itself anti-democratic.
For the first time in European history a State was set up on the basis of majority and minority populations. Throughout those years there was arrogance and contempt from the Unionist Party towards its political opponents. The minority suffered deep distress and oppression. Throughout my political career, since I first began to understand what politics was about, it was my constant endeavour to try to change the one-party State of Northern Ireland and bring to an end the oppression and the distress which had been suffered by the minority population.
But in doing this I never at any time placed myself in the rôle of a minority representative; in other words, a Catholic representative. I have always claimed, and will claim until the day I leave politics, to be a Socialist. When I came to this House and allied myself with the Socialists represented here the battle began.
Both Governments are entitled to some credit for at last trying to grapple with the problems brought about by Britain interfering in Ireland in the first instance. After the elections it was decided that we would try to bring about a form of community government, a form of government which could enlist the active support of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland who want peace.
Over the last few years, and particularly during last year and this year, a massive wave of revulsion has engulfed the Northern Ireland people in their opposition to the violence that has been going on. I cannot draw any distinction between murders committed in differing circumstances. Those who knifed and cruelly butchered my colleague Senator Paddy Wilson because of his political beliefs are just as bad as those members of the Provisional IRA who blew the brains out of a 15-year-old boy on the slopes of the Cavehill in Belfast. Nothing that has happened in Northern Ireland, or that will happen in the future, can justify such actions.

Mrs. McAliskey: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is equal revulsion for the members of the British Army who shot John Paddy Mullan in the back?

Mr. Fitt: I have always been opposed to killing and violence in Northern Ireland. It is only rarely that we see the hon. Lady in this House. It is only rarely that we hear her speak in this Chamber. It is rarely that we see the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone in the Chamber. If they were representing their constituents as they should be doing, they would attend this House and take part in the various activities in which public representatives must engage if they are doing their job of representing their constituents.

Mrs. McAliskey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fitt: No. I have given way too often. The hon. Lady attends here at intervals of five, six or seven months, and when she does come to the House she makes a destructive speech. She utters not one sentence or syllable that could in any way bring peace to Northern Ireland or end the killings.

Mrs. McAliskey: The hon. Gentleman was not here to hear my speech.

Mr. Fitt: I do not need to be in the House to hear what the hon. Lady has to say.

Mrs. McAliskey: How does the hon. Gentleman know what I said?

Mr. Fitt: I have heard other speeches made by the hon. Lady, and I have read the speeches that she has made in Northern Ireland.

Mrs. McAliskey: The speech that I made today has not yet been printed.

Mr. Fitt: I state without fear of contradiction that the hon. Lady is a total and absolute irrelevancy in Northern Ireland. All that she has sought to do during the last two years in this House—

Mrs. McAliskey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Whitelaw: It is not a point of order.

Mrs. McAliskey: Despite what the right hon. Gentleman says, I shall abide by the decision of the Chair.
Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for an hon. Member to attack me personally and then not allow me the right to reply? I should have given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene during my speech but, unfortunately, he was not in the Chamber then.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): It is usual for an hon. Member who attacks another hon. Member to allow that hon. Member to reply at some stage, but it is for the hon. Member who has the Floor to say when.

Mr. Fitt: I give way to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. McAliskey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has attacked me and, in his absence, my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus), for not attending the House more often. In days gone by the hon. Gentleman did not regard attendance at this House as the right way to represent his constituents. That was once his idea, and it remains mine. The interests of my constituents are served by my fighting British imperialism, and I consider that I do that adequately without presenting myself here.

Mr. Orme: With British taxpayers' money.

Mrs. McAliskey: As much as it takes to defeat British imperialism.

Mr. Fitt: If that is to be taken as the hon. Lady's defence of her neglect of her constituents, I believe that the best people to judge are those who live in the Mid-Ulster constituency.

Mrs. McAliskey: The hon. Gentleman will find out at the next election.

Mr. Fitt: I state without fear of contradiction that the hon. Lady has yet to put forward a constructive idea or policy that will bring an end to the violence in Northern Ireland.

Mrs. McAliskey: Cancellation of the housing debt.

Mr. Fitt: I understand that in my absence the hon. Lady referred to a colleague of mine who is now to be on the Executive, Mr. Paddy Devlin, as a debt collector for the British forces. I resent that—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Lady to refrain from making comments while seated. She has had her opportunity to make a speech.

Mr. Fitt: In one day Paddy Devlin helped more people who needed his help and sought it than the hon. Lady will ever do in her lifetime. The hon. Lady comes here and makes speeches that are bitterly destructive, yet she wants to continue to represent her constituency. The days of the charisma of Bernadette Devlin have gone. We have discovered who the little girl is and what she is capable of doing, and now the electors of Mid-Ulster will be ashamed of her.
Perhaps I may now forget about the hon. Lady—and it is very easy to do that at this point in our proceedings—and come back to the debate. The three parties which received a majority of votes at the recent election—Mr. Faulkner's Unionist Party, the SDLP and the Alliance Party—after much misgiving decided, against a background from which they could gain no confidence whatever, to enter into talks to try to bring about a form of administration in Northern Ireland which could be accepted by all the Northern Ireland people. I believe that we have done that. I believe that we have at last begun to think about politics in Northern Ireland.
I have heard criticism from the UVF, the UFF, the Official IRA, the Provisional IRA, the hon. Member for Antrim, North—from the far reaches of the Bible belt in America where he is now—and from the hon. Member for Down, North. It does not surprise me in the least. It was inevitable that criticism would come from such sources. Notwithstanding that, I am determined, and the party that I lead is determined, to continue with the negotiations that have begun with the other political parties.
There is not as yet an Executive in Northern Ireland. There is an Executive-designate, because we recognise that some of the more difficult problems, such as the Council of Ireland, an acceptable police force, and the bitter, burning question of internment, have to be settled to the satisfaction of those three parties before the Executive can come into operation.
So, although I say that, given favourable circumstances, there will be an Executive, I am not prepared to say that the coming into being of that Executive is an absolute certainty. But the SDLP, the party which I lead, is prepared at all times to put the interests of the people of Northern Ireland above their own party political position. If the political parties involved in these discussions had been thinking only of their own parties, the discussions would never have begun.
Last Tuesday when the result of the Unionist Standing Committee meeting was made known from Glengall Street, when it was announced that Mr. Faulkner's Unionists had won by the slim majority of 10, there were people on the Republican side of the community who were inclined to laugh and sneer and say "Ha, ha. He got through by only 10 votes and he will never succeed in another contest such as that". I am glad that Brian Faulkner was successful in that contest.
I ask hon. Members to look at what happened at that meeting. For the first time in Northern Ireland's history 379 Unionists stood up and voted for the policy of Mr. Faulkner, who said "I am prepared to share power with the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland as represented by the SDLP" For the very first time we had Unionists from a Protestant background, people from the majority party, people who had given, and who were even at that time giving, their allegiance to a party which had complete and absolute control of everything in Northern Ireland: yet because of the bitterness and revulsion that has swept the country, because of the killings and the violence, those 379 Unionists were prepared to make this concession—and I recognise that it was a concession—and said that they were prepared to share power with other political forces in Northern Ireland.
But the people who were not prepared to make any concessions were those led by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, who, I repeat, is in the Bible belt getting a few more converts, and by the member of the Vanguard Party, Mr. Craig. It would pay us at some time to analyse the speeches made by so-called Unionist representatives in this House. I believe that there are some people here who are still members of the Unionist Party but


are bitterly opposed to everything that the Unionist Party, as led by Brian Faulkner, is trying to do at this moment.
I ask them the same question as I have already asked the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster. What is their alternative? Their alternative has been repeatedly stated, and it is "Get the British Army, get the RUC. Arm them to the teeth. Send them into minority areas. Shoot as many people as you can. Intern as many people as you can. Detain as many people as you can. And, in so doing, give us the right to restore a Protestant ascendancy Parliament in Northern Ireland. Bring us back to the days of 1920 and right up to 1968, 1969 and 1970." That is their answer to the problems of Northern Ireland. I ask this House: can anyone in his senses believe that that is an honest alternative to the problems which now beset our land?
I believe that the three political parties in Northern Ireland which have engaged in these discussions have opened up a new era in Northern Irish politics. For the first time, we have people of different political allegiances beginning to say "In the interests of this whole community, let us think not of party but of people." I still have a lot of suspicions about many members of the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, and it would be less than human to say that I have forgotten the misdeeds committed by the Unionist Party throughout my lifetime; they will be hard to forget but, I hope, much easier to forgive. But this step has been taken in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
Let me say this, but let it not be taken as claiming a victory for my own political party. For many years the minority in Northern Ireland claimed that they were being discriminated against in the allocation of houses and jobs. That was indeed so, because on many occasions I had to bring their grievances to the Floor of this House. I said that people in Derry, Newry, Strabane and other areas of Northern Ireland—I may be proved wrong, and if I am I shall be man enough to admit it—were deliberately isolated industrially by the policies of the Unionist Government. The Government did not want to attract industries to those areas, because those areas were anti-Unionist.
Now we have a chance of proving it, because the Minister for Commerce in Northern Ireland, and I announce it on the Floor of the House this evening, will be John Hume. Let us see whether John Hume can direct industry into the city. Let him take the onus upon himself to see whether he can direct industry to Newry, Strabane and all the other areas which have suffered grievous unemployment. Austin Currie will be in charge of development, housing and local government. He will certainly accept the responsibility for creating more houses in Northern Ireland, and creating them on a non-sectarian basis. He will not want to see more houses built purely and exclusively for Catholics; he will want to see them built for people who need them.
Paddy Devlin will be the Minister of Health and Social Security. I know of no man of greater humanity and compassion in the Northern Ireland political arena. I have the greatest faith that Paddy Devlin will also act in the interests of all the people who can benefit from his Ministry. But this could never have happened if there had not been a power-sharing Executive. We could have sulked and said that we would have nothing to do with Faulknerite Unionists and nothing to do with the Alliance. The Faulknerite Unionists could have said that they would have nothing to do with the SDLP, and we should have been back in the trenches with absolutely no hope of progress in helping the people in Northern Ireland.
Now we have been given a chance. The SDLP is in control of three major Ministries and I have the utmost confidence in my colleagues that they will act in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. By so doing it may be possible—or it may be impossible, but I hope it will be possible—to break down the barriers created over so many centuries by the political situation in Northern Ireland. If my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster wants to query me again, let me state now, as I stated when I made my maiden speech in this House, that I am an Irishman and I do not believe there will ever be true and lasting peace in the island of Ireland until Ireland is united.
It is my honest ambition to do everything I can to convince all the Irish


people, both North and South of the border, that the ending of that disastrous border is in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. I know this will not happen tomorrow, next week or next month. I do not believe that seeking to fulfil that ambition in any way justifies the killing, the shooting, the bombing and the murders that have taken place. It must be brought about by consent, and that is my intention for however many years I may remain in political life. I intend to bring about a process of reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
The first step must be to do away with the terrible polarisation that has been created over these past years. I do not believe that the Unionist Party and its supporters, who are in the majority in Northern Ireland, are so unseeing and unthinking as never to accept the inevitability that Ireland will one day be united. I do not believe that those who cling tenaciously to the Republican ideal believe that they can gun and shoot a million of their fellow countrymen into a united Ireland overnight. There must be an intermediate stage, and that stage has begun. The greatest division in Ireland was not the border. The greatest division existed between the two communities on the grounds of religion and of ancestry. But Northern Ireland over these last three or four years has suffered so much, both the majority and minority, that we should be prepared at least to let this Executive begin with God's blessing.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) on having the courage to come over here and make a speech after all the deliberations he has been entering into during the past weekend and the weeks past. I wish him well in his new post. I want to be magnanimous, and I wish him all the best. Whether or not he succeeds is another matter, but he has my best wishes for the future.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not merely on the setting up of the Executive but on surviving so long in Irish politics, an achievement which I think will never be emulated in this House.
Like all Ulster debates, this has an air of illogicality about it, which must be confusing for most people. Many

points of view have been expressed about the new Assembly. I shall not go around the country condemning it at every street corner. I am prepared to give it a chance and judge it on its results. That is the fairest way to do it.
I shall say no more about that, but this is the first time I can remember in British history that we have departed from the democratic principle so stubbornly upheld in the rest of the United Kingdom. It remains to be seen how it will work out.
I take up next something that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said about elections. It would be extremely interesting to discover what will be the position if another election is held for the Assembly. Will the majority party leader after the next election, if it takes place, automatically become the chief executive? I ask the question because it is quite likely that someone other than Mr. Faulkner or the hon. Member for Belfast, West will lead the minority party. There are all sorts of possible permutations
With regard to the Council of Ireland, I have always maintained that some form of co-operation between North and South was absolutely necessary, especially with regard to security. I am not prepared to go so far as to say that interference by Northern Ireland in the affairs of the Republic or vice versa is desirable. We must approach the matter with great caution, but I am prepared to back what I have always maintained was necessary, a British Isles security committee.
A common law enforcement area must include the whole United Kingdom, because I have been convinced, not only during the past four or five years but in various past IRA campaigns, that unless concerted action is taken simultaneously in this country, Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, it is very difficult to defeat the anarchists. I hope that a step will be taken in that direction so that if any IRA or other trouble breaks out in Southern Ireland, Northern Ireland or Great Britain concurrent action will be taken to stamp it out. It is only if that is done that the forces of anarchy can be defeated.
I turn to the immediate situation regarding security in Northern Ireland. I


pay tribute to the Army for its endurance during the past four or five years. It has had a hard task. I plead with the Minister to take a long, hard look at the security of the border. It is a sad reflection on the House that we in the United Kingdom have failed to secure the borders of our own territory. I am convinced that the trouble will continue for a long time unless we can stop the supply of arms across the border and unless we can give security to the people living along the border.
I hope that before long the IRA stationed at Crossmaglen will be obliterated. That is a running sore. It is an area of the United Kingdom which is controlled exclusively by the Irish Republican Army. The Army post at Crossmaglen cannot be serviced by road transport. Servicing has to be done by helicopter. Nightly the IRA is carrying out road checks which should be done by the UDR or the Army. It is a frustrating situation. The IRA maintains that the area no longer belongs to the United Kingdom but to Ireland. It says that it has assumed the influence of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and that it will not stop until it has cleared the last of the Army from the area. That is an important matter which should be considered with all speed.
A matter which has occupied the minds of most hon. Members and most citizens is the shortage of fuel. I understand that the Government are guaranteeing full fuel supplies to Southern Ireland. At the same time I have read in the Press that the reciprocal arrangements whereby we can exchange electricity between North and South have been cancelled during the present emergency. I understand that most of the electricity which would normally have been exchanged is made from the Shannon scheme. I may be wrong about that.
Is it not odd that during the past weekend I was inundated with pleas from the ministers of various churches to see whether anything could be done to enable them to use the central heating in their churches for Sunday services? It is odd that various congregations in Northern Ireland have now to go around picking up gas cylinders and gas fires to try to heat their premises for Sunday services while their normal supplies for

central heating are in existence. That matter should be dealt with speedily and a solution should soon be found. It is a frustrating situation.
We all await with interest the formation of the Executive. As the hon. Member for Belfast, West said, many pitfalls remain to be overcome. I am sure that most people in Northern Ireland will refrain from undue criticism. I do not mean that there will be no criticism. However, I am sure that they will give the Assembly and its Executive a chance of showing what it can do.
I must be honest with myself. I will still campaign for full representation for Northern Ireland in this House as well as at the Assembly. That has always been my intention. If that comes about, the Assembly and the Executive will work. In those circumstances it will be accepted by all shades of opinion in Northern Ireland. If we alienate a large body of loyalist opinion in Northern Ireland from the scheme of things now envisaged, we shall be sowing the seeds of grave discontent for the future. I hope that the British Government will consider the matter sympathetically and, perhaps within the confines of the Kilbrandon Report, reach a solution which will be acceptable to everyone in future.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas: It is not my intention to detain the House unduly at this time of night. I apologise for missing a considerable part of the debate. However, I heard the two opening speeches and many others.
Now is not the time to rake over old ashes. Nor do I consider, to mix metaphors, that it is the time to heap new coals on the fire of religious and political divisions in Northern Ireland. This is the time for hope and the time when individuals in this House and in Northern Ireland ought to be more cautiously optimistic about the future. We have heard today a remarkable speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). It must be quite unique to have heard the portfolios for an Executive-designate announced on the Floor of the House. While we were fortunate to hear that speech from the Social Democratic and Labour Party's leader, we should be mindful also that


the leader of the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, Mr. Brian Faulkner, is not here but that he himself is due a great deal of gratitude for the courageous stand he took in negotiating with his party and with others to get the Executive formed.
I said in a debate a long time ago that, once the individual leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland came together across the political and religious divide and saw the merits in each other, three was hope. I take the view that John Hume, if he could get himself into a bigger circle of affairs and events and be given real responsibility, is the type of man who could play a great part not only in Northern Ireland and Irish affairs but in European affairs.
In the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves, both Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland are competitive. But it is a diminishing competitive rôle in terms of the EEC. The border will continuously lose its significance and therefore, if it loses its economic significance, we should be looking to a council of the United Kingdom and Ireland and not just to the Council of Ireland. In this atmosphere the United Kingdom cannot somehow or other stand back.
I will illustrate what I mean. Large explorations are going on in what we call the Celtic Sea. Other explorations are going on in the Republic of Ireland's part of the Continental Shelf. Here is an area for co-operation. There are also massive opportunities for co-operation in agricultural and regional policies. These are the sort of purposeful areas where the United Kingdom and the whole of Ireland can come together in meaningful discussion.
I want to say something directly to the Protestant working class because at this time it is among them that feelings will be most sensitive, and if we are to get—although I hope we will not get it—a dying gasp of hostility to this political settlement it can come initially from them. They may feel at this point alienated in terms of not having a direct political voice. I hope that the remarks of the leader of the SLDP will be taken to heart on both sides of the political and religious divide. He has stated that his representative in the Executive will

hope and seek to do good for all the people of Northern Ireland. I am sure and I hope that similar statements will be made by Mr. Faulkner and the leader of the Alliance Party. It is only in an atmosphere of what we might call real politics that the Northern Ireland Labour Party stands a chance of coming through in terms of its representation and its political ethos.
I wish well to the endeavours of the Secretary of State, and I add my congratulations to him. I hope that political events elsewhere and possible political changes will not remove him too hastily from the Northern Ireland scene. Time is needed for people to settle down and to work with each other.
I hope that this is the last occasion on which we shall discuss this activity in constitutional terms. There are likely to be some amendments, but I am sure that they will not be opposed. The bipartisan approach has at times been difficult for the Labour Party and for me personally. But it has been in this atmosphere that people in the United Kingdom have seen that we have had an opportunity to say to the urban guerrilla in Northern Ireland "You will not win." We have the courage in terms of the feelings of the British people. We have had the troops and security forces to withstand the urban guerrilla. We have now created a situation in Northern Ireland where the urban guerrilla cannot succeed.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I am very grateful for the opportunity provided by the debate to discuss matters of great importance to Northern Ireland, particularly those subjects on which I have been invited to concentrate; namely, agriculture, local government and the health and social services.
Experimental policies of the kind that we have been discussion for the greater part of the day should not in any way distract us from the other matters in which the House has acquired an interest, which will be a continuing interest for the House. With consequent involvement, and all that that implies, in matters of detail, it is hoped that Parliament will accept the natural justice of the recommendation of the Kilbrandon Report to increase the number of those


of us who will continue to bear these burdens, thus ensuring that Northern Ireland has fair and adequate parliamentary representation. This would be more profitable than the hypothetical type of exercise in which we have engaged today.
We have heard statements by various Ministers that agriculture in the United Kingdom is doing extremely well. No one would quarrel with that statement if he related it solely to Great Britain. But when one includes Northern Ireland the position is seen to be very different. In Great Britain it is true that the high prices paid for cereals produced have undoubtedly boosted average farm incomes. The position in Northern Ireland is very different. In Northern Ireland livestock represents 80 per cent. of the volume of agricultural activity. To feed that livestock it is necessary to import 80 per cent. of the feeding stuffs required. It follows, therefore, that Northern Ireland farmers are far more seriously affected than their counterparts in Great Britain by the rise in feeding stuff costs. When one combines that fact with all the other handicaps, such as remoteness and transport costs, one realises that we are at a serious disadvantage.
We are grateful for the understanding which has been shown in such matters by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. We hope that his representations on behalf of Northern Ireland farmers will be heeded and acted upon by the various Departments in Whitehall. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be convinced of the necessity to expand beef production. I hope that he will be supported in his efforts to ensure, for example, that the breeding cow and calf subsidies are maintained.
We should also welcome the Under-Secreary's support in securing a more liberal interpretation of the EEC directive on the problem areas, areas which are at a special disadvantage because of climatic conditions, quality of soil, the growing season and so on. The extension of the definition of marginal land in this respect would encourage those farmers, particularly in the west of the Province, who are trying to make the most of their limited natural resources.
Turning to milk production, there is concern that Her Majesty's Government

may allow themselves to be unnecessarily inhibited by EEC limitations on increases in the price of milk. For example, a permitted increase of 1·6p per gallon would be quite inadequate to meet the increased costs: three times that amount would be much more realistic. I trust that the House can be assured that this factor will be taken into account in the annual price review.
The Ulster Farmers' Union and farmers generally will be heartened by the hopes expressed earlier today by the Minister of Agriculture that the earlier start to the price review negotiations will in turn enable him to make a much earlier announcement. Farmers generally would welcome such an announcement, because it would allow them to plan ahead with confidence, knowing what was in store for them, even if there were some delay in obtaining the ready cash involved.
Turning to the Ministry of Development—I am not sure that it will go under that title in the new cabinet-making processes—I want to mention particularly the problems of Aldergrove Airport. Mainly through the generosity of Governments of both parties in the past, the airport has been brought up to international standards. The runway extension has made it possible to operate and accommodate direct transatlantic flights, and the proposed terminal extension will undoubtedly provide greatly increased facilities for travellers.
But, with this in mind, I am very disturbed by reports that the transatlantic section of British Airways is not making the fullest use of these facilities. It is apparently placing undue emphasis on the attractions of Prestwick and Heathrow, to the detriment of Aldergrove. There is also a suspicion that Aer Lingus, by using various front organisations, is siphoning off traffic which properly belongs to our own State airlines. This appears to be a violation of agreements.
It might help to have some indication of the progress of the plans for the terminal extension and perhaps of the Government's thinking on what might be called the rather more controversial proposals and suggestions for developing the Aldergrove area. Hitherto, it has been the planning policy that there should be no great development, either industrial or housing, in the area lying between the growth centres of Antrim and Craigavon. It would be a mistake to clutter the rural


area of Aldergrove with factories or even service industries, and I hope that it will not be done.
One realises that thinking for the future is bound to be affected by security considerations. We have to face the fact that this violence will continue for a considerable time. I am afraid that the superstition still exists in this House that somehow that problem is related to what we have spent most of today discussing. We have to adjust ourselves to that uncomfortable fact of life.
In that regard, most people would accept the need for fairly tight security at Aldergrove, but sound judgment should be shown to ensure that the security arrangements do not do the job of the IRA by making life hell for travellers and airport staff and the unfortunate local residents, who are inevitably treated as potential terrorists as they go about their daily business.
I wish to pay a sincere tribute to the airport staff and the staff of the various airlines that operate from Aldergrove who cheerfully perform their duties under trying conditions. I suggest that their courage and devotion should be an example to some of the spokesmen for the pilots, whose hysterical reactions to minor incidents cause a great deal of the panic measures, which in turn cause much frustration.
I share the fears and disappointment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), who thought it a retrograde step that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive should now revert to some kind of political control. But at least this will not happen in the foreseeable future.
I wish now to refer to the problem of repairs and maintenance. I am glad to see the Minister of State on the Government Front Bench, because when I recently questioned him about this matter I was asking about the entire area of repairs and maintenance. I believe that the Minister perhaps misunderstood me and assumed that I was dealing with one specific case. This was not so.
There is a shortage of skilled manpower throughout the whole of the Province in the sectors of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive responsible

for repairs and maintenance. The position is that, although private building contractors can use a great deal of flexibility in interpreting Government pay policy, the Housing Executive has no such discretion. It must go strictly by the book. Therefore, the Housing Executive finds itself in something approaching a straitjacket. Repairs and maintenance are falling very much into arrear, and some measures are called for. I hope that the Ministry of Development will take an earlier initiative in this matter.
Another difficult and worrying problem involves the sale of houses by the Housing Executive to tenants. In many cases before councils' powers were taken over by the Executive agreements had been reached about transactions on the basis of fair valuations arrived at by Ministry of Finance valuers. When the Executive assumed responsibility for housing, area officers did their best to preserve and maintain some degree of continuity, but the plain truth is that little or no progress was made. The problem has now been passed to a higher level, and a special unit has been formed at the headquarters of the Executive. It now looks as though the whole operation may become bogged down. This creates an intolerable problem for tenants who would be happy to improve houses if they were sure of the future. I hope that my hon. Friend will look into that aspect of the problem.
My final point relates to improvement grants. This is a temporary problem and is not a matter in which we would be creating any precedent from which we might suffer later. The problem is that before the transfer of housing functions many people had applied to local councils for improvement grants. In the friendly, informal way in which these things are done in local areas, in many cases verbal approval was given and owners were assured that work would attract the full grant. Now that the Executive has taken over, it would appear that some obscure official somewhere in the citadel occupied by the Housing Executive has decided that this is a discretionary grant and has said "No, you cannot have the full grant." This has left owners in a most difficult situation because they have embarked on a good deal of expenditure. In some cases schemes have been completed and owners are now being told that they do not


qualify for grant. Unfortunately, they have incurred large overdrafts and are being burdened with increased interest rates and so forth. I beg my hon. Friend to assure us that he will do his best to see that a more humane attitude is taken by the Housing Executive to what is purely a short-term problem affecting only this limited number of people who were caught on the wrong side of the changeover of responsibility.
Whatever the structural defects of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and whatever rethinking may be necessary in the future, it can be said that, with very few exceptions, the officers and staff at all levels of the Executive are doing their best to provide for the housing needs of the community.
I return finally to the point which has been made about changes in the Northern Ireland team of Ministers. It is important for the team to be maintained at its full strength. Knowing the burdens which fall upon me as a mere person shadowing three Stormont Ministries, I can appreciate what it must be like for one Minister to run three Stormont Ministries.
For the time being, we have a provisional Executive. I shall not change my view about it, which I do not need to reiterate tonight. I hope that I am proved wrong. I hope, too, that the Westminster Government will fall in with the recommendations of the Kilbrandon Report by giving us the number of representatives and the full parliamentary Government to which we are entitled.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: This has been an unusual Irish debate. I concede immediately that all Irish debates in this House are unusual, because they have a special connotation and we all know the problems that exist. But it is unusual in the sense that for the first time we are not discussing proposals which will be put into legislation. In effect, we are discussing the decisions which have been arrived at and the positive proposals which have come out of the agreement reached between the Secretary of State and the three political parties in Northern Ireland.
Much has been said about a bipartisan approach. On behalf of the Labour Party, I can say that what we have done is to support the policies that we believe to be right for Northern Ireland. We have

done that when the Government have agreed, as they have with many of them, and when they have not agreed we have opposed them.
I believe that we have been right in our general approach in wanting to see a new political start in Northern Ireland. This debate has been about starting from scratch with a new concept, a new Executive and Assembly and the possibility of real power sharing.
There have been major changes in Northern Ireland. I know that some of the pessimism which exists has been reflected in a number of speeches today. In my opinion, however, that pessimism is not borne out by the facts.
One of the most significant events in recent days was the vote at the Unionist Council. By that I do not mean the majority vote which Mr. Faulkner obtained. What was really astounding was that nearly 400 Unionists put up their hands in public in favour of working with Roman Catholics on a genuine power-sharing basis. That could not have happened or, indeed, have been thought of 18 months or two years ago. But it did happen in the face of all the pressures and difficulties.
We all know that to be involved in Irish politics is not to gain in the sense of plaudits and bouquets. Brickbats come regularly, and one's integrity and honesty are challenged from all sides. But it is astounding that the Unionists—still divided, I concede—could place their crosses on ballot papers or put up their hands saying "Yes, we want power sharing; we want to work with the Roman Catholic community." It is a question not of having a Castle Catholic in an administration, but of having Catholics in on the basis of genuine power-sharing.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) suggested that all the best portfolios had been given to the SDLP and that the Unionists had got nothing. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) said exactly the opposite. Therefore, that comes out just about right.
I accept that we are not home and dry. We are still on a knife edge in many instances. But the critics on both sides of the House—the hon. Members


for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey), Fermanagh and South Tyrone and Conservative Members who are opposed to this concept—have not put forward any tangible alternatives. Each puts forward a concept in which he or she can believe. Each puts forward a policy that a section of the community could support. But can they put forward anything which in the interim can cross the divide between the two communities? These proposals have done just that. I challenge those hon. Members to say that they have put forward any constructive proposals. I believe that the agreement that has been arrived at is the best that can be achieved in the circumstances, and that flowing from it positive results will develop.

Mrs. McAliskey: I have on several occasions put forward constructive policies, as my hon. Friend will find if he cares to go through previous debates. I am interested not so much in this sharing of power as in what power is shared and on what basis. I have put forward constructive proposals on innumerable occasions. For example, if there is anything to be pleased about, I am pleased that Mr. Austin Currie will be responsible for housing.
One constructive proposal that I have consistently put forward in this House is that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which as a central body was a good idea, not only replacing 73 local councils but amalgamating the debts of those 73 local councils—the debt in my area was about £5 million—should have its debt cancelled. I have consistently asked the Government, and presumably will now have to ask the Executive, to cancel the Housing Executive's debt as the debts of the airlines and railways were cancelled in the past. That would allow the Housing Executive to start its policy anew. I have put forward that policy and a policy for employment. I have, in fact, put forward several constructive policies which are based not on who carries them out but on the underlying politics. I am against the policy when I cannot see how it can possibly be carried out in a power-sharing Executive when half the Executive is composed of Tories.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend wants not only to keep her cake but to eat it. She

now comes forward with proposals that she is ready to put to the new Executive. She even welcomes a certain appointment. She speaks of excellent proposals that she has put forward in the past on economic issues, but she has not answered the question I posed: what is the basic proposal that she makes to bridge the two communities? That is the key issue.

Mrs. McAliskey: Socialism.

Mr. Orme: I put the same question to hon. Gentlemen opposite, not least to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who gave credit to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I realise that hon. Members do not want an increase in the violence; they want a solution. However, they do not come forward with an alternative. Surely the proposal that the Unionists have accepted, under great duress and pressure, to work with the Alliance Party and the SDLP is the only possible development at this time.

Captain Orr: No.

Mr. Orme: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says "No." But the answers are not forthcoming.
This is the same sort of argument as we have had within our parties. I say quite frankly that our critics in the Labour Party and at our conference have said this. We were asked at our conference why we were not discussing Ireland. From 630 constituency parties and something like 150 trade unions, not one resolution was submitted dealing with the Irish policy or an alternative policy. That is because there is no alternative policy at the moment. Everyone knows that, if this policy fails, we will have to return to direct rule. The other alternatives such as total integration, UDI or an immediate united Ireland are not capable of achievement now. We have to face this fact, and it was faced by the SDLP and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in a courageous speech earlier today.
My hon. Friend has had to move a long way. He and Mr. Brian Faulkner are now to sit down in the same office. That is something that would have been spoken of as a figment of the imagination only a short while ago.

Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly said that we had not put forward any alternative proposals. I have constantly put forward various alternative proposals. I put forward a simple one this afternoon—that we should accept what Kilbrandon has said and increase Northern Ireland representation in this House. It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying that it is impossible. Neither I nor my party would agree with that view.

Mr. Orme: The hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees with that proposal, and some of his hon. Friends would want increased representation. But would the minority accept it? Of course not. He knows that that is divisive. What we are looking for is something that will unite us.

Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman is making the point that something is unacceptable because a minority will not accept it, yet he is forcing upon Northern Ireland an Executive which is opposed by at least 36 per cent. of the electorate.

Mr. Orme: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's party has accepted it. It has not been forced upon it. Those who set out to wreck the Assembly or the Executive by constitutional or violent means—they are entitled to use the former—have to be extremely careful. If they wreck them, they could impoverish those whom they represent. If we were to lose our way now and go back to square one, it would not be quite the same as when we left square one. There will be increasing difficulties. The pressures and the violence will return.

Mr. Stallard: My difficulty is that the Government have embarked on a course which seems for ever to rule out a united Ireland. I say that that is the only ultimate solution.

Mr. Orme: The concept of the Executive has alongside it a Council of Ireland. I could say that I believe in a united Ireland, but I would have to carry a million Protestants with me to implement the policy. We have to convince the people in Northern Ireland on both sides of the argument that this is capable of achievement. I believe it is, but not by violence, threats or trying to push the Protestants into something they are not prepared to accept. We concede that.
I hope that the new Executive—when it becomes possible for it to start, which may be in the New Year—will get down to tackling some of the social and economic problems. The hon. Member for Antrim, South made an interesting constituency speech. He dealt with the bread-and-butter issues in Northern Ireland and set out many of the things which he said needed to be done.
There is now an opportunity for the three parties to fashion policies. Sometimes they may be in conflict with the Government at Westminster. I hope that they will come forward with Socialist proposals. The Secretary of State and his hon. Friends might not agree with what is put forward, but I hope that the three parties will nevertheless have an opportunity to put forward proposals which they think should be carried out. The test of the Executive will be not fine words and declarations but achievements. Its success will depend upon whether the right roads are built, whether it decides to cancel the ring road at Belfast and whether jobs are brought to Belfast and to the area west of the River Bann.

Mrs. McAliskey: rose—

Mr. Orme: I hope that the hon. Lady will excuse my not giving way, but time is rather short.
The problem of employment at Harland and Wolff must be tackled, as must the whole question of employment in Northern Ireland. The chairman of the new committees and the members of the Executive are not going into a cushy job. They will be answerable to the people amongst whom they live. The hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster and others who are opposed to the Executive know how things operate in Irish politics. They say that they are opposed to the Executive, but the next minute they are on the doorstep demanding that the Minister does various things.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) criticised the fact that housing was going back into the political arena. In the past it was under the control of the Stormont administration. I welcome its return to the political arena, because it means that it will no longer be dealt with on a one-sided basis. The hon. Member for Belfast, West will have responsibility for housing. He will have a heavy responsibility on his shoulders,


and he will be expected to produce results. People from all communities will want houses, and they will have a right to ask for them.
Perhaps the most important problems in Northern Ireland are those connected with housing, the environment and the provision of jobs. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is running at a rate of 5·3 per cent. Too often in the past people have had to leave in order to find jobs. They have solved their individual problems by leaving the area, but their problems should have been solved for them by the introduction of sound economic and social policies.

Mrs. McAliskey: The hon. Gentleman criticises those who, he says, oppose something and at the same time demand something from it. The Labour Party continually demands from the Government things which it opposes. It is therefore right to oppose the Executive and at the same time demand that certain rights be given to the people.
Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the new Minister-designate for Health and Social Services should not extract rent arrears from the supplementary benefits and family allowances paid to people on rent strike, since it was that individual who called for the strike?

Mr. Orme: That last point is a matter for the Executive and the Assembly. It is not for us in this House to dictate their policies. They would resent it if the Secretary of State dictated their future social and economic policies, and they must resolve them. But I shall let my last words stand against what the hon. Lady said. I think that my criticisms were justified.
I want to come to the question of internment, which is a serious issue which has taxed the minds of those of us on this side of the House since its inception. What we are concerned about is that internment should not be with us for so long that it becomes accepted as part of the machinery of State. Internment must be brought to an end. Although it can be discussed in the Executive and the Assembly, we recognise that security is an exempted matter and is therefore the responsibility of this House. But it is wrong that internment should continue alongside the Diplock proposals,

the Act, the amendments—some of which we did not agree with—and the new tribunals and courts.
We have made it very clear in the past that we want to see internment ended; in fact, we voted against internment in this House and we think we were right in doing so. We want to see a drastic change, and I am hoping that with the coming of the Executive there will be a reduction in violence which in itself will lead to the ending of internment. We know about what is going on at Long Kesh and about the conditions there. The present position is unsatisfactory and puts us at odds with other Western European countries. Therefore, something must be done fairly soon.
In the Council of Ireland I see one of the real chances for open development within both Northern Ireland and the Republic. The right hon. Gentleman intends that there shall be consultations prior to the setting up of the council, and I presume that there may be meetings with parties in the Republic. He said that he wanted to meet the parties, even those that were opposed to the Executive and to the concept of a Council of Ireland. Reference was made by one of my hon. Friends to a Council of Europe where people could meet. I do not see why the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) should not make his views known to the politicians in the Republic, and vice versa. I believe that there is unlimited scope for the Council of Ireland, although there is a restriction in the fact that decisions will have to be unanimous.
The final question is, will it work? We do not know. If the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West are anything to go by, it will work. But it will not be easy, and there are all sorts of hurdles and plenty of critics and opponents. However, if this idea begins to work and economic and social benefits start to flow, it will give a new vigour to Northern Ireland and a new feeling of confidence. We on this side want to see working-class Protestants and Roman Catholics coming together on the social and economic issues which do not divide them—they are divided only by sectarian differences which have been bred over the generations—and there is a real chance for that to happen.
Therefore, we welcome this step. We in the Labour Party feel that we have played some part in it, but we do not wish to detract from the Secretary of State's ability and achievement in bringing about the formation of the Executive. It would be churlish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman other than fully. Now, however, the matter is moving away from him and the Government into the hands of the people of Northern Ireland. That is how the problems in Northern Ireland will finally be resolved. We wish the people well. There will be criticisms and problems, but this might be the first step in recent years in securing a real achievement in Northern Ireland.

9.36 p.m.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): I do not think it can be said that this has been a euphoric debate. This House and those who attend our debates on Northern Ireland are far too familiar with the pattern of events there, and with the ups and downs, to get swept away by euphoria. There has been no euphoria, nor should there have been.
No one has ever believed that the future and the threat of violence can be met by politics alone. Of course they cannot. There is always the danger of violence, there are always the threats and there is always the need to provide every conceivable backing for the security forces to be at readiness against the fears and threat of violence. But, at the same time, if there has been no euphoria it is right to say, as many have done, that this could be a good start, that the possibilities for a better future are there and that what has been brought forward today as a proposed agreement on the Executive-designate provides possibilities on which we can and must build.
I should like to take up a number of points that have been made and elaborate a little on the aspect which began to come through at the end of our debate concerning what seemed to be the bread and butter issues. Yet, basically they are the most important issues, the issues of a roof over one's head, the food on one's table and the kind of life and surroundings that the people of Northern Ireland will have, deserve to have and have a right to in the future. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr.

Merlyn Rees) asked about the timing and the various ways in which the pattern of things may develop in the future. Now that agreement has been reached on an Executive-designate, obviously we want to go ahead as soon as possible, and we wish to arrange a conference with those in the Executive who will take part and with the Government of the Republic. We hope that will be in early December. Thereafter, if this House and another place approve the necessary amendments to the Constitution Act, there may be—again if this House approves—the necessary devolution of powers, and it would be our hope that the whole of this process could be completed early in the New Year. That is how we see the future shaping up as of now.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Just as I think we were helpful over the date of 28th June, if the Government wish to move even faster in that timetable, bearing in mind there will be a recess, we would expedite any move the Government made.

Mr. Howell: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has noted that point.
The hon. Member asked about the economic and social document which he said could be treated as a Queen's Speech by the Executive if and when it comes about. That is right. The document of economic and social aims has been put together by, and in a sense is the property of, the three parties to the agreement. It is for them to decide how they wish to use and present it once the administration of the Executive gets under way.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the status of the committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). It has no statutory function. Its rôle is simply to help the chief constable and the police authority. It reflects the Government's belief that urgent attention should be paid to recruitment and the place of the RUC in the community. For example, thought has been given to the rôle of district police liaison committees in improving links between the community and local police commanders.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the study of law enforcement. This is a preliminary study at official level. But, as my right hon. Friend said, it is a


matter for detailed discussion in the future.
No legislation would be needed for the formation of a Council of Ireland. A different question arises over its functions. If it is to assume powers which are reserved or excepted, legislation will be required here at Westminster, and if it is to assume powers and functions on transferred matters, legislation will be required in the Assembly in Belfast. But there is no obligation for legislation on its formation, although the Assembly might feel that it wished to pass a motion to mark its formation.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Because of the time, I shall not pursue the matter now, but we understood that the Council of Ireland did need legislation, and we find the situation a little odd.

Mr. Howell: The formation is a different thing.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members asked what was the purpose of the first tripartite conference. It is to discuss the general aspect of the Council of Ireland, to formulate clear views about it in a general sense and to reach the kind of agreement which, together with the agreement on the Executive-designate, could provide the whole package for the process to go forward to the formal conference.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the consultative and advisory level body which my right hon. Friend mentioned, and asked who could be in it. It is very much a matter for discussion in the Assembly and the Executive, and with other interested parties, as to who would go to the second-level body and what form it would take.
As for economic policy in the North and the South, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the trade between the two is fairly small. In a way that is not surprising, because the North has for a long time been geared to the rest of the United Kingdom economy and the South has been geared in a different way. Trade is governed by the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement and other international agreements between the Republic and ourselves. The tariffs have come down rapidly. I believe that those between Northern Ireland and the Republic on

everything are due to be eliminated next year. That is rather faster than their elimination on trade between the rest of the United Kingdom and the Republic. It can be seen that there are no barriers to trade Perhaps we shall see trade expand as the prosperity of Northern Ireland increases, as it is increasing now, and that of the rest of the United Kingdom increases.
I must correct one point made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus), who seemed to think that civil servants were appointed by the Minister of Finance. Appointment does not work like that. It is done by the head of the Civil Service, subject for the most senior appointments to the political head of the Department concerned. The hon. Gentleman's rather Machiavellian idea that the Minister of Finance or the head of the Department of Finance under the Executive would pick out all the civil servants can be dismissed as complete rubbish.

Mr. McManus: The hon. Gentleman dos me an injustice, and the Secretary of State does me an even greater injustice by muttering "Complete rubbish". I do not believe that it is. I did not speak of the Minister of Finance. I said that in the Ministry of Finance a section has been established. Can the Minister confirm or deny that a section dealing with the management of personnel has been set up?

Mr. Howell: That is not quite what the hon. Gentleman said. There is a Civil Service management division which comes under the Ministry of Finance. It is concerned with the administration of the Civil Service. It is similar to the Civil Service Department here. That is a far cry from what the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. McManus: That is exactly what I said.

Mr. Howell: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) asked "What about the Chief Whip?" He asked what the Chief Whip will do. I do not find any difficulty with that matter. The Chief Whip will whip in the supporters of the Executive. I should have thought that that was obvious. If I have missed anything in the point raised by my hon. and gallant


Friend, I cannot see it. He asked what the non-Executive members will be paid. I cannot give an answer. The matter is still being considered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) asked for more information on the tripartite talks. He asked who would be the parties to the talks and what their capacity would be I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend said—namely, that the parties who are not prepared to assent to power sharing and the propositions of the Constitution Act will have their views taken by my right hon. Friend in consultation with those parties who will consent to power sharing. Therefore, the parties are the parties to the Executive and to the tripartite talks with the Government of the Republic and the British Government. The purpose will be, as I said earlier, to discuss the broad shape of the future Council of Ireland and other arrangements, and to provide, or assist in determining whether, a basis can be reached which satisfies all those in the Executive, which completes the package and which allows the Executive to go forward.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Do I understand that in the preliminary round of talks the parties will go as individual parties rather than as a preliminary Executive?

Mr. Howell: By definition the Executive does not exist in a legal form. The parties must go as parties to the preliminary talks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) raised an interesting number of matters. I hope that he will not regard me as dismissing them if I refer to them as bread and butter issues. I shall consider them all in detail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South referred, as did the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) to the broader issue behind all the political agreements and the determination to hunt down the men of violence and the extremists on both sides. Behind my right hon. Friend's herculean and patient efforts there is the aim to provide prosperity and a decent life for the people of Northern Ireland. I fully recognise that there is a tremendous amount to do. There are appalling black spots in Northern Ireland.
We have spent much time in the stewardship of the last 20 months in attempting to beam on to the black spots the full efforts and resources of the Government in lowering the appallingly high unemployment rates. At the same time, it is fair to say that on the economic front there has been an almost continuous stream of good news which has been in direct contradiction to the pessimism and gloom of people who have taken a different view of Northern Ireland. It has been in complete contradiction to the efforts and the declared aims of terrorists to destroy the economic fabric of Northern Ireland.
That has been the declared aim of some. What has been the answer? It has been a powerful and continuing surge forward in the Northern Ireland economy. There has been rapid expansion. For example, in the past year the growth rate in manufacturing was 14 per cent. That is by no means a small performance. It seems that 1973 will be the best year for industrial development in Northern Ireland for many years. While there are black spots, and while there is a need for development, the picture is by no means one of complete gloom.
The one area of life in Northern Ireland in which there has been a slump in the figure is in the unemployment total. The figures published today show a fall of 5·2 per cent. The trend is still downward. It is not just a 5·2 per cent. fall in some places because the trend has been downwards right across the board. There are 30 local employment offices in Northern Ireland and every one shows a fall in unemployment. That is not the sort of picture to be expected in a community which is breaking up or edging towards the verge of destruction. It is an even spread of prosperity which is extremely encouraging.
One of the greatest burdens of the past has been the appalling unevenness of job opportunities, with labour shortage existing side by side with areas of appallingly high and persistent unemployment. We all know that a heavy social and political price has been paid for this. It has been one of our central aims to alter this state of affairs and to attempt to bring more help to places like Londonderry, the Newry area and West Belfast, not just West of the Bann. I am sure that if and when the Executive is formed


and moves into gear, it will want to push ahead from here in concentrating on reducing the appalling disparities in employment opportunities and employment resources in different parts of Northern Ireland.
I do not think that those who have kept closely in touch with Northern Ireland's economic affairs will be greatly surprised by the fact that, despite all the bad news, there has always been the good news of the economic performance. I think—and perhaps this is an opinion I can give after 20 months of close involvement—that there is, first, a real quality of drive and ingeniousness in Ulster businessmen and work people in overcoming the challenges that they have had to face. Secondly, if I can put in a word from our side, we in the Government have sought to match those qualities with a pretty imaginative approach specially devised to meet Northern Ireland's special regional needs, and I hope that the future Executive would want to develop this approach. Thirdly, I think that there are remarkable achievements by the trade unions and managements in industrial relations.
When one looks at these three elements, one sees that they are the ingredients of economic success which provide that in the future, unless things go very wrong, the prospects of building Northern Ireland's prosperity on a really secure basis are extremely good. I think that that should be recognised in everything we have tried to do so far and in all that I hope that we and the Executive will seek to do in the future.
In industrial development, this year, up to the end of September, 53 new projects have been promoted by the present Ministry of Commerce. Eleven of these are new plants, including six from outside the United Kingdom—from the United States, Scandinavia and Western Europe. This is a question not just of local investment but of people from outside the United Kingdom putting their money in Northern Ireland in very large quantities, thus registering a vote of confidence in the future of Northern Ireland and its people. The continued confidence of firms like Courtaulds, which alone has this year announced its intention to spend over £40 million in Northern Ireland, is a reflection of the amazing

ability of Northern Ireland to compete against an appallingly difficult background. This is the economic picture for the present, and it provides a very sound basis for the future, although I am the first to admit that much remains to be done.
I turn now to housing. Our housing performance has not been good enough, and there are problems. We have to pick these up with the Housing Executive. It has had very great difficulties and has fought against appalling odds in getting its housing programme forward. But I recognise that, when all is said and done, the Northern Ireland administration and the Civil Service have performed extremely well against a background of political instability and violence to achieve very great things in Northern Ireland in carrying forward the basis and framework for a better life for its people.
That is the picture now. The simple question remains: if we can move on from here to sustained peace and a stable political settlement, if the people of Northern Ireland have done that well under present conditions, how much better will they do when peace and political stability are fully realised? These goals are not beyond Northern Ireland's reach.
The pessimists have told us in the House over the last 20 months that none of these things could be done. We were told that it was not possible to have elections. Elections were held. We were told that it was not possible to create an Assembly. The Assembly was created. My right hon. Friend was told that it was flatly impossible to reach any agreement in principle on an Executive. But an agreement in principle for an Executive-designate has been reached.
Therefore, when one hears that these things are not possible and will not work, the time comes when the pessimists have to be answered and we have to say that these things can be reached and that the prospects for Northern Ireland's economic, social and political future can be realised in a satisfactory way.
On the security side we know, as I have said, that the danger of violence is always there. But let us not forget that the security forces' efforts are a constant and continuous success. Again and again they score enormous successes in searches, finds and arrests and whittling down by


erosion of terrorism, from both sides. Let us not for a moment forget that success has increasingly marked the efforts of the security forces. That deals with the moves towards peace.
As to the political front, we now have the agreement for the Executive-designate. It is vitally important that there has been agreement between political leaders. But perhaps even more important was something put into my mind by the very moving and brave speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). That is that, aside from the political leaders, more and more people in Northern Ireland are recognising one simple, central reality; that this is not just a fancy way forward, not just a gimmick, not just a choice of something that can be picked up and thrown down. This is the only way. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said, there is no alternative, no soft option, no other way. He was entirely right, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South was entirely and tragically wrong.
This is increasingly understood by the people of Northern Ireland. That is what lies behind and gives substance to this start, this agreement for an Executive-designate which my right hon. Friend has achieved.
The truth is that words, arguments and views are slowly but inevitably replacing the violence and gunfire, though the pessimists may deny it. We are beginning to hear in Northern Ireland something that I thought we would never hear—someone listening to the other person's point of view. This is beginning to come through in the currency of debate. We never heard that previously.
There is some way to go yet. Perhaps we can say, at the end of this debate, that the first shoots of true reconciliation are beginning to show through the ice-black earth of Ulster's recent past. If we can move on from here—as I believe the whole House, with one or two sad exceptions, thinks we can, the economic and social vitality of Ulster can be permanently sustained on a basis of peace and prosperity in this corner of the United Kingdom and of Europe.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn

Orders of the Day — BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hall-Davis.]

Orders of the Day — WASTE MATERIAL (RECYCLING)

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Peter Trew: I welcome this opportunity of raising the subject of the recycling of waste materials. We are beset on all sides by a shortage of materials. The world's natural resources are limited and are gradually becoming depleted. There is, however, one resource which is not only growing but growing at an alarming rate. That resource is waste material, of all descriptions. Rubbish is the world's only growing resource. In this country each year we produce 20 million tons of municipal waste, and a great deal of what we throw away could be used.
I say immediately that a great deal of waste material is already recovered. The materials reclamation industry is in its own right a substantial industry, with a turnover of more than £1,000 million a year. But a great deal more could be done.
There are three good reasons why we should reclaim and recycle waste materials. First, they provide us with materials which are in short supply. Second—

It being Ten o'clock, the notion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Mr. Trew: Second, they result in a substantial saving in imports, because many of the materials that they replace we import from abroad. Third, they provide a partial solution to the disposal of refuse, which is potentially such a great blight of the environment.
There are two main groups of activities in recycling. The first comprises those well-established recycling activities—the collection and recovery of paper, glass, scrap metal and rubber—which have been going on for a long time on a large scale but which still have considerable scope for improvement. The second group is still at an experimental stage but has considerable potential—for example, the treatment of refuse to extract fuel oil, protein and certain types of sugar for conversion into industrial alcohol.
Waste paper is an important raw material for the paper and board industry. About two-thirds of our paper mills now use a high percentage of waste paper as a raw material, and their total requirement this year will be about 2 million tons, representing an import saving of £100 million. The need for waste paper is increasing. Indeed, unless we can solve the problem of recycling newsprint, we may well find it difficult to continue having newspapers of the size and volume that we enjoy today.
The greatest scope for new supplies of waste paper is municipal refuse, which includes each year about 6 million to 7 million tons of waste paper, of which at present we process only about 300,000 tons. Municipal waste provides only about one-fifth of the paper industry's requirements.
The shortage of bottles is something with which every housewife is familiar. We are being warned about the shortage of milk bottles and soft drink bottles. There are two problems here. First, people are not returning enough bottles; and second, too many manufacturers are changing over to non-returnable bottles. But if the problems of collection can be resolved, there is considerable scope for re-using waste bottles and glass.
I am told that one obstacle which will have to be overcome is the housewife's insistence on crystal-clear bottles for her

milk. If she were prepared to accept cloudy bottles, I am told that waste glass of all sorts could be a valuable source of new bottles. There are other potential uses for waste glass—non-skid surfaces for floors and roads, aggregate in concrete and the manufacture of glass fibre.
Scrap metal is already a sophisticated industry. Over 50 per cent. of our requirements of iron and steel come from scrap, as well as a substantial proportion of lead, copper, aluminium and zinc. But a great deal more could be done in this respect too. The most promising sources are municipal refuse and the processing of industrial effluent to recover metals.
Rubber tyres account for 300,000 tons of waste each year. We could be making far more use of that. It is possible, I believe, to increase the proportion of reclaimed rubber in new tyres. Rubber when ground and mixed with bitumen can provide a useful road surface.
Those are the existing recycling activities, and there is a great deal that can be done to get more use out of them. I shall come shortly to what I believe the Government can do to assist the situation. Before I do so I wish to say something about the experimental activities.
First there is a process called pyrolysis, by which refuse is burnt in the absence of oxygen to yield a wide range of fuels from gas to solid combustibles. There is an American process which can yield up to a barrel of oil per ton of refuse. That will not solve the present oil crisis, but in future it could prove to be a small but significant source of oil fuel. Then there are the processes by which there can be extracted from organic waste proteins and certain types of sugar which can be converted into industrial alcohols. An important technique which is still at an experimental stage is solving the problem of what to do about plastics, which appears to be an intractable problem. One use to which plastics can be put is that they can be shredded and used instead of sand in paving stones. Those are the main activities. I realise that I have left out many activities which are all-important in their own way.
Having given a brief account of the problem, I should like to consider what the Government could do to encourage the use of waster material. There are


four areas in which the Government can act. The first relates to research. The Government are already carrying out valuable technological research at the Warren Spring Laboratory, near Steven age. One welcomes that and would like to see more of it, but there is also a need for a great deal of statistical research. We need to know precisely how much refuse is being produced, where it is, what is its content, what is its potential for re-use and what is the demand for it by industrial users.
The Government can do a great deal in the way of publicity. For example, local authorities are potentially the most important collectors and processors of refuse. However, the Government cannot leave the matter to local authorities to decide what commercially they should do and how they should exploit refuse. The Government must go out and sell the idea to local authorities. The Government must make the public more aware of the need to recycle waste material and of the benefits to be gained. If local authorities are to be active in this matter, they will need to have the public's co-operation. The ordinary householder will have to separate out his refuse—put his newspapers on one side and his bottles on the other—if this process is to be economic.
The next thing the Government can do is to take power to control packaging and containers. I am delighted to see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), who earlier this year introduced a Ten-Minute Bill on this subject. I understand that he hopes to have an opportunity to take part in this debate. It is important that the Government take powers to control packaging so that it is in a form that is easy to reprocess. For instance, paper coated with plastic is difficult to recycle. The Government must also take steps to reduce the use of non-returnable or one-trip bottles as they are called in recycling jargon.
Finally, the Government can take action by giving financial incentives. By this I do not mean subsidies. It is too easy to say that the Government should encourage recycling by giving subsidies. I am reluctant to suggest Government subsidies for anything. But what the Government can do is to consider whether local authorities which invest in recycling or reprocessing plant can qualify for investment

grants. I should like to see these grants linked to a share of the profits when the processes become profitable.
The Government might also provide tax incentives to encourage the use of recycling materials. This might be done through the mechanism of value added tax.
This has been a very brief sketch of the potentialities of recycling and of what the Government can do. But I believe that the economic and efficient use of our waste materials is one of the great challenges of the next decade. It is one in which the Government have to become very much more involved.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) for allowing me the opportunity to say a few words and I congratulate him on his initiative in choosing this subject for an Adjournment debate. It is one of the most important subjects to which we can turn our attention. What is needed in this context more than anything else is a positive war on waste.
Wherever we turn we find an enormous amount of waste. I was recently in America where it is taken to extremes. The Americans talk about conservation and they lament shortages while they drive around in cars which go only nine miles to the gallon and they take Sunday newspapers containing 500 pages. This is to reduce things to absurdity. We have not yet reached that stage here.
There are three matters which cause me concern and which prompted me earlier this year to introduce a Bill which, though deficient in drafting, was, I hope, reasonable in its intentions. The first of my concerns is the superfluous packaging which my hon. Friend mentioned in his wide-ranging speech. For the housewife this inflates the cost of many articles that she buys. Packaging can account for 33 per cent. of the price of many articles. This is wasteful and contributes to inflation. On that level alone therefore, it deserves to be stemmed, and manufacturers should seek to stem it in enlightened self-interest alone.
Then there is the sheer waste of resources to which my hon. Friend also referred. Resources are being squandered on an increasingly prodigal scale, and it


does not or should not need present critical circumstances to remind us that we cannot go on in this way and hope to leave a society and a country fit to live in for future generations.
My third concern is the pollution problem, and it is one which occasions a great deal of anxiety. Packages, trash cans, aerosol sprays and all the other items that one can think of are dumped in the countryside with no proper attempt at reclamation. How important it was that my hon. Friend should underline the need for a concerted attack upon this and for proper recycling for all the materials which go into packaging and which otherwise go straight into the dustbin—an enormous mouth which is daily fed at greater and greater cost and to less and less effect.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done. I endorse what he said, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able at least to indicate that the Government have been thinking deeply on these subjects and have some solutions to propose.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: I wish to join my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) on his choice of subject.
My interest in the subject was first aroused when I was invited to lunch by a group called the Reclamation Industries Council. Like many other people in the country, I suspect, having received an invitation of that kind from a person whom I knew, I thought that I was going to meet a group of people engaged in an interesting but subsidiary activity. To my surprise, I found myself among representatives of an industry which currently turns over more than £2,000 million a year. It is a huge industry and one which is growing enormously.
My interest aroused, I began to look into the question of the world's resources and our rate of consumption. I use just one statistic which I found quite staggering when I began looking into the subject. It is estimated that by the year 2000 there will be 7,000 million people in the world compared with an approximate population at the moment of 3,700 million.
We have heard a great deal about growth over the last year or two. If the world were to aim for an economic growth rate of 3 per cent. and the population expanded as expected, within 25 years we would be consuming the world's resources at twice our present rate. When we consider how long it has taken to get to our present rate of consumption and realise that within 23 years that would be doubled, we must take a deep breath and begin to understand that the world might be careering headlong on a course which could lead to its own destruction. One thing which I have subsequently discovered which makes me feel easier is that it is possible for the world to continue to grow at that rate provided that it accepts that, instead of just using up resources, it might have to start reclaiming and recycling.
My hon. Friend mentioned aluminium. At the moment approximately 80 per cent. of the world's aluminium is produced from ore and 20 per cent. from reclaimed aluminium. Those percentages could quite easily be reversed. It requires a conscious decision on our part to stop consuming and to start reclaiming.
My hon. Friend, who is gaining a reputation for himself in this House, has hit on a most important subject. Reclamation and recycling sound trendy and unimportant. But if we are to continue to grow they will have to play an absolutely vital part in any Government's future planning.

10.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I join my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) and Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) on his choice of topic and his succinct and eloquent disquisition in a House which deserves to be better attended.
My hon. Friend has indeed chosen to speak on an important topic. I am grateful for the contributions that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock rightly said that there could become a need for a war on waste. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West evidently had a most interesting lunch. It would appear that during the first course he received one or two


shocks but that all was well because, towards the end of this entertaining meal, he at least had returned to a measure of optimism about the world's future.
I should like to give two statistics at the outset which indicate the dimensions of the problem in this country. Each year we produce in household waste approximately 14 million tons. That is growing at a rate of about 1 per cent. in weight but at a greater speed in volume due to the increase of packaging every year. Therefore, in 10 years it will be approximately 50 per cent. greater. At the same time, discounting colliery and electricity power station ash, we have 20 million tons of industrial waste which is also rapidly increasing.
Because of the increase in the sheer volume, complexity and, in some instances, toxicity of waste we have made arrangements, in the Protection of the Environment Bill now before Parliament, which the rules of Adjournment debates prevent my discussing, for a radical reorganisation of the whole of the waste collection and disposal business in this country. I assure the House that within the arrangements it will certainly be possible and, I am sure, desirable that more attention is given to the recovery of materials for re-use, for recycling where it is economically sensible to do that, and for the use of waste for reclamation purposes of all kinds.
I think that we need to be quite sure about our terminology. Words such as "recycling", "reclamation" and "reuse" cover a very broad area and sometimes mean different things to different people. They can mean the use of waste as a source of heat or in land reclamation. They can mean the salvaging of material for use again in its existing form, as with bottles, or the extraction of material from waste for use as a secondary material as with mixed waste paper or mixed ferrous scrap. They can also cover conversion into some other material, as with compost made from house refuse or aggregates made from incinerator clinker.
It is not possible in 10 minutes to do justice to all these aspects so I shall concentrate, as my hon. Friends have done, on one or two aspects of the problem. May I first attempt to put into perspective the substantial amount of

material of various sorts that is at present being reclaimed by industry. The reclamation industry embraces more than 1,000 firms, mainly of small and medium size. I am glad to say that there is a Reclamation Industries Council which was formally constituted in 1971 and is now discussing a number of the industry's problems with the Department of Trade and Industry. We welcome this council because it provides a focal point of contact between the Government and industry.
My Department has a twofold interest in recycling. It stems first from our concern for the local authorities which involves us indirectly in waste collection and dispersal. Secondly, we have within the Department a general responsibility for the control and reduction of pollution, including the treatment of wastes before disposal. My Department is committed to achieving faster progress in all these areas. It is worth recording some of the facts. The amount of ferrous scrap recycled by industry is worth about £120 million a year. Rather more than half the ferrous scrap consumed in steel furnaces is now derived from reclaimed and recycled material.
Non-ferrous metals recycled by the industry contribute about £230 million to £300 million a year to our balance of payments. This is a substantial amount. About 42 per cent. of our total consumption of copper is made up from secondary copper. The proportion of secondary lead has increased from 62 per cent. five years ago to over 64 per cent. today. The main source of secondary lead is storage batteries which have a limited life. In view of the growth in the number of motor vehicles, there can be little doubt that the proportion of recycled lead from this source will rapidly increase. The proportion of secondary tin his increased from about 10 per cent. in 1972 to about 18 per cent. today of our total refined tin production. The United Kingdom production of aluminium is about one-third of our total consumption.
Turning to other products, the amount of glass cullet—a technical term which will be familiar to my hon. Friends—that can be used in the manufacture of new glass is restricted by a number of technical considerations. I note what was said about "cloudy" glass, which is of some importance. The present figure of


glass cullet is about 20 per cent. and this could be appreciably improved. The difficulty here is that uncontaminated cullet of the necessary quality is not easy to find.
The United Kingdom consumption of new rubber, natural and synthetic, is now running at about 450,000 tons a year, so there is no shortage of potential scrap. A large part of that will come from vehicle tyres. I have not been able to get any final figures, because the industry is fragmented, but I understand that about 70,000 tons of scrap are now used to produce about 25,000 tons of reclaim. It is plain that the industry is already recycling and reclaiming a great deal of material. We would all agree that we want to see more and I can assure the House that, through research and other ways of Government encouragement, we wish to see greater progress in this direction for the many good reasons my hon. Friend has given.
I now turn to the more difficult problem of the handling of local authority wastes. Here the central difficulty is segregation. Local authority wastes, almost by definition, consist of a large variety of putrescibles—tin, paper, ash, and so on—thrown together in a dustbin. The problem is difficult, but a great deal could be done if we could persuade the housewife to segregate her rubbish, or if councils could afford to pay their manual workers a proper price to separate the tins, bottles, plastic and paper. That involves a great deal of manual labour, and it is an unpleasant task in many respects. It is financially a formidable—indeed, daunting—proposition for any local council to take on.
Moreover, as our working party on refuse disposal said, however far we may progress with schemes of recovery, a considerable proportion of potentially reusable materials in our dustbins will always remain to be disposed of as refuse, because, while we are considering the merits of any reclamation proposal, we ought not to forget that salvaging material is not an end it in itself. The secondary materials that one salvages must be wanted, and they must be able to be produced at an economic price to those to whom they go.
In some cases manufacturers are reluctant to use reclaimed material because of

the impurities which could prevent their products from achieving the required standard of performance or purity. In addition, there are other difficulties, such as the uncertainty of supplies which depend on someone else's output of wastes.
Then there is the question of costs. It is not always just a matter of providing money to subsidise a recycling process. The reclamation of a scarce material may in some cases require a greater use of other natural resources, such as energy, which are as scarce, and, in fact, are a positive drawback to what is sought to be achieved. The question whether reclamation should be carried out is a complex matter which needs to be assessed very carefully.
My hon. Friends will know of the various working parties on the disposal of plastics, glass, paper and tin boxes. If my hon. Friends have not had an opportunity to study the reports that are available in some cases—and others will be available shortly—I shall be glad to send them copies.
May I now try briefly to deal with some of the specific points which my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford recommended to the House. He wants to see a great deal more research. A lot of research is under way at both Government and industrial establishments. I was interested to hear what he said about the need for more statistical compilation. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I assure him that the new county councils, with their new responsibilities under the Local Government Act and with the new powers contained in the Bill for the protection of the environment, will be able to do a much better statistical job in the future than has been done in the past.
We have also almost completed a review of all tips in the country. It is a most extensive review, and it will provide the Government with a very much better statistical base on which to make our judgment. We shall make the information available to local authorities.
My hon. Friend spoke about publicity. I think that he has tonight contributed to that by launching this debate. He also spoke about financial incentives, but I was grateful for his moderation in not proposing additional expenditure. I assure my hon. Friend that my officials


and I shall study what he said. He will understand that this is not an easy matter. In the end, ways of recycling must have a commercially viable purpose, and I believe that industry and the Government working together can do a

much better job in the future than has been done in the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.